Larson et al v. Bondex International et al

Filing 167

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PROHIBIT ANY STATEMENTS OR REFERENCES BY COUNSEL OR ANY WITNESS CONCERNINGPLAINTIFFS EX-HUSBANDS CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR FIRST-DEGREE MURDER ANDANY STATEMENTS OR REFERENCES TO THE BOOK, UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVENgranting 144 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 07/15/2011. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

DIANNA K. LARSON and MERLIN B.
LARSON,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
OR PROHIBIT ANY STATEMENTS
OR REFERENCES BY COUNSEL
OR ANY WITNESS CONCERNING
PLAINTIFF’S EX-HUSBAND’S
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR
FIRST-DEGREE MURDER AND
ANY STATEMENTS OR
REFERENCES TO THE BOOK,
“UNDER THE BANNER OF
HEAVEN”

vs.

BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Case No. 2:08-CV-333 TS

Defendants.

The Court has before it Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude or Prohibit Any
Statements or References by Counsel or Any Witness Concerning Dianna K. Larson’s ExHusband’s Criminal Conviction for First-Degree Murder and Any Statements or References to
the Book, “Under the Banner of Heaven” Pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Civil
1

Procedure.1
Plaintiff contends that any reference to her former husband’s criminal conviction during
voire dire or at trial would be irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The Court agrees. Plaintiff
alleges that she was exposed to Defendants’ products containing asbestos during the construction
of her and her former husband’s home. The identity of her former husband and his crimes
committed thereafter are wholly irrelevant to the issues of whether: (1) Plaintiff used and was
exposed to Defendants’ asbestos products, (2) Plaintiff developed malignant mesothelioma as a
result of this exposure, and (3) Defendants caused damages to Plaintiff. Thus, the Court sees no
need for Plaintiff’s former husband’s crimes or identity to be discussed either in voir dire or at
trial.
Moreover, any reference to Plaintiff’s former husband’s crimes or identity would be
highly prejudicial. As the parties are well aware, Plaintiffs’ former husband’s crimes received
substantial media attention, both locally and nationally. Any mention of Plaintiff’s former
husband’s crimes or identity would taint Plaintiff’s case.
The Court is aware that Plaintiff has not specifically sought to exclude her former
husband’s full name from being used at trial or voir dire, but in the Court’s own discretion, it
finds that any discussion of Plaintiff’s former husband’s name is unnecessary and prejudicial.
Should any prospective juror know the connection between Plaintiff and her former husband, this
will come out through the Court’s typical inquiry into whether any of the jurors know any of the
parties.

1

Docket No. 144.
2

It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude or Prohibit Any Statements or
References by Counsel or Any Witness Concerning Plaintiff’s Ex-Husband’s Criminal
Conviction for First-Degree Murder and Any Statements or References to the Book, “Under the
Banner of Heaven” Pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket No.
144) is GRANTED. The parties may refer to Plaintiff’s former husband by category (i.e., former
husband, ex-husband, former spouse, ex-spouse, etc.) or by his first name (Ron) during voir dire
and at trial. The parties are further precluded from making any mention of Plaintiff’s former
husband’s criminal conviction, including any publications concerning that conviction, during
voir dire and at trial. Parties should review all exhibits and redact them accordingly.
DATED July 15, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

3