Harper v. Tveter et al

Filing 89

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 71 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 8/24/2015. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN
LIMINE NO. 6 TO PROHIBIT
REFERENCE TO COLLATERAL
SOURCE PAYMENTS

TAYLOR HARPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL TVETER,
Defendant.

Case No. 2:13-CV-889 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Prohibit Reference to
Collateral Source Payments. Plaintiff requests that Defendant be prohibited from presenting any
evidence regarding payment of medical or hospital bills, disability income, Social Security, or
payments from any other source, be they governmental or third-party. Defendant has indicated
to the Court that he does not intend to introduce collateral source evidence, as long as Plaintiff
does not open the door to the issue.
Under Idaho law,
[p]ayments received from collateral sources are generally inadmissible unless the
evidence of payment from a collateral source is relevant to some other material
issue. For instance, when a plaintiff, through either the use of misleading
statements or outright false statements, falsely conveys to the jury that the
plaintiff is destitute or in dire financial straits, admission of evidence of collateral
source payments received by the plaintiff is permitted as impeachment evidence. 1

1

Mulford v. Union Pacific Railroad, 321 P.3d 684, 691 (Idaho 2014) (citation and
internal quotation omitted).

1

Accordingly, any evidence regarding collateral source payments will be prohibited at
trial. However, if Plaintiff opens the door to discussion of these issues, Defendant may
use evidence of collateral source payments as impeachment evidence.
Finally, in his Response to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant requests he be allowed
to subpoena relevant billing and payment records from CIGNA. Under Fed. R. Civ. P.
45, attorneys have subpoena power. If Defendant believes he needs a court order to
obtain certain documents, he must submit an appropriate motion.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Docket No. 71) is granted in part
and denied in part.
DATED this 24th day of August, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

2