Millsaps et al v. Aluminum Company of America et al

Filing 86

ORDER denying without prejudice (39) Motion to Exclude Any Opinions From Experts Regarding Alcoas Corporate Scienter in case 3:10-cv-00358-RLJ-CCS; denying without prejudice (202) Motion to Exclude Any Opinions From Experts Regarding Alcoas Corporate Scienter in case 3:13-cv-00678-RLJ-CCS. Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on 2/04/2015. Associated Cases: 3:10-cv-00358-RLJ-CCS, 3:13-cv-00678-RLJ-CCS (KMK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
ROBERT W. MILLSAPS, individually and as
personal representative of the Estate of Brenda
Lee Millsaps and for the benefit of the children of
Robert W. Millsaps and Brenda Lee Millsaps,
Plaintiff,
v.

ALCOA, INC., and BREEDING INSULATION
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:10-CV-358-RLJ-CCS, as
consolidated with No. 3:13-CV-678

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Any Opinions from Experts
Regarding Alcoa’s Corporate Scienter [Doc. 39]. The Court finds that this motion is now ripe
for adjudication, and for the reasons stated herein it will be DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
In the instant motion, the Defendant moves the Court to enter an Order precluding
Plaintiff from eliciting any expert commentary regarding Defendant’s corporate documents at
trial under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Plaintiff has responded in opposition
to the Defendant’s motion, arguing inter alia that the motion in its current form is premature,
indefinite, and overly broad. [Doc. 53]. The Defendant has filed a final reply in support of its
position. [Doc. 52].

The Court has considered the parties’ positions both as to the substantive challenges
presented and as to the timing of the instant motion. The Court finds that the motion, in its
present form, is both premature and overly broad. Defendant supports its broad request for
exclusion by stating that many of the questions posed by Plaintiff’s counsel in expert depositions
began with the phrase, “Would it surprise you that . . .” and concluded with a recitation of
various passages from corporate documents. The Court finds that the presiding District Judge
will be equipped to address whether such questions are objectionable if and when they are
presented at trial, and such rulings at trial will avoid the undersigned attempting to hypothesize
about what questions will actually be asked at the trial.
Moreover, the Defendant’s motion does not move the Court to exclude a particular
question or group of questions. Instead, the Defendant seeks the broad relief of precluding
Plaintiff from eliciting any expert commentary regarding Defendant’s corporate documents at
trial. The undersigned finds that it would be imprudent and improper to grant such broad-brush
relief at this juncture. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Any Opinions From
Experts Regarding Alcoa’s Corporate Scienter [Doc. 39] is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, to allow specific objections to questions to be presented at trial or in motions in
limine as may be appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2