Ryans et al v. Koch Foods, LLC

Filing 129

ORDER granting 81 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 7/9/2015. (DJH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
TRAVIS LEE RYANS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KOCH FOODS, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-234-SKL

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence pertaining to any
claim of direct negligence against Defendant [Doc. 81].

Defendant seeks to exclude this

evidence under Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence on the grounds that it
is irrelevant for the reasons set out in Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment and
memorandum in support [Docs. 39, 40] on Plaintiffs’ direct negligence claims. Defendant lists
22 items from Plaintiffs’ pretrial disclosures which, along with any related witness testimony,
Defendant seeks to exclude from trial [Doc. 81 at Page ID # 1055-56].
Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendant’s motion in limine [Doc. 91] requesting the Court
to deny the motion. Plaintiffs state that although they are not pursuing claims for negligent
hiring or entrustment, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to Defendant’s negligence in
supervising and training the driver involved in the accident on September 24, 2015. Plaintiffs
also rely on their arguments in response to Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment
[Docs. 49, 50]. Plaintiffs make no arguments specifically addressing Defendant’s list of exhibits
to be excluded if its motion is granted.

By a separate order, the Court has granted the portion of Defendant’s motion for partial
summary judgment seeking judgment on Plaintiffs’ direct negligence claims. Because Plaintiffs’
direct negligence claims have been dismissed, the Court FINDS that evidence of Defendant’s
alleged direct negligence is irrelevant and inadmissible under Rules 401 and 402 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence pertaining to
any claim of direct negligence against Defendant [Doc. 81] is hereby GRANTED.
The parties are ORDERED to discuss the 22 items from Plaintiffs’ pretrial disclosures
identified by Defendant and any related witness testimony and to notify the Court during the
Final Pretrial Conference of any remaining issues regarding the admissibility of said 22 items
and testimony for any purposes other than Plaintiffs’ direct negligence claims addressed herein.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2