Kough et al v. Wing Enterprises, Incorporated et al

Filing 71

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Jury Trial RESET for 1/12/2016 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 3C - Knoxville before District Judge Pamela L Reeves. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 1/15/15. (JBR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

RAY KOUGH and wife, MARY KOUGH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WING ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED,
d/b/a LITTLE GIANT LADDER SYSTEMS
And LITTLE GIANT LADDERS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 3:12-CV-250-PLR-HBG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

A final pretrial conference was held in this case on January 12, 2015, at which
time the following action was taken:
1.

The trial is this case is continued to commence on January 12, 2016 at

9:00 a.m. If this date is not convenient for the parties, they may contact the Court’s
judicial assistant, Ms. Pam Simpson, at [phone] for another trial date.
2.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 57] to disallow expert testimony of Dr.

Scott Smith is denied at this time, subject to renewal if plaintiffs do not provide an
expert report for Dr. Smith.
3.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 57] to exclude the videotaped deposition

of Dr. Scott Smith [R. 57] is denied.

4.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 59] to exclude “any and all claims set

forth in Plaintiffs’ Proposed Pretrial Order that were not previously pled in Plaintiffs’
original Complaint or their First Amended Complaint” is too vague, and is denied.
5.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 59] to exclude expert testimony not

disclosed during discovery pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2) and (e), is denied as premature.
6.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 59] to exclude “any evidence offered by

the plaintiffs which has not been disclosed to [defendant]” is too vague, and is denied.
7.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 59] to exclude certain patents from

evidence is too vague, and is denied at this time. Defendant may refile its objection if
plaintiffs fail to make the proper disclosures required by FRCP 26.
8.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 59] to exclude evidence of plaintiffs’ lost

earnings, lost earning capacity, lost wages, or lost income or opportunities, is denied as
moot. The parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of all claims for lost wages
and loss of future earning capacity [R. 37] on December 1, 2014.
9.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 59] to exclude evidence of plaintiffs’

filing for bankruptcy is granted.
10.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 59] to exclude any exhibits or witnesses

not disclosed by plaintiffs in accordance with FRCP 26, is too vague, and is denied.
11.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 59] to exclude “presentation, or reference

to, any claim, incident, or complaint of a ladder failure or injuries resulting from ladder
usage by any person other than Ray Kough,” is too vague, and is denied.

2

12.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 59] to exclude any evidence of

defendant’s income or assets is granted.
13.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 59] to exclude evidence of whether

defendant has liability insurance is granted.
14.

Defendant’s motion in limine [R. 59] to exclude “any advertisements or

design changes concerning the Little Giant Type 1A industrial ladder from and after the
date that Ray Kough purchased the ladder,” as evidence of subsequent remedial
measures, is denied as premature.
15.

Defendant’s motion to allow its expert to remain in the courtroom during

trial [R. 60] is granted.

Plaintiffs’ expert shall also be allowed to remain in the

courtroom during trial.
16.

Plaintiffs’ objections to Magistrate Judge Guyton’s Memorandum and

Order excluding the proposed opinion testimony of Dr. Tyler Kress are taken under
advisement. Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental memorandum within thirty (30)
days. If defendants wish to respond to plaintiffs’ objections, they shall file their response
fourteen (14) days after service of plaintiffs’ supplemental memorandum.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Enter:

____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3