Kristensen v. Spotnitz et al

Filing 200

ORDER denying 148 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 149 Motion in Limine; denying 150 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 152 Motion in Limine; denying 153 Motion in Limine; on Motion to Exclude granting in part and denying in part 167 ; finding/denying as moot 180 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 9/30/2011. (mab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION

ALEXANDER STONE KRISTENSEN, a minor by
next friend, SUSAN LEIGH KRISTENSEN, and
KAIA VICTORIA KRISTENSEN, a minor by next
friend, SUSAN LEIGH KRISTENSEN
Plaintiffs,
v.

NO. 3:09–cv–00084

ORDER

JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON

WILLIAM DAVID SPOTNITZ and DENISE
CONSTANCE SCHAIN
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of the parties’ pretrial motions to
exclude. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, I will DEFER
RULING on Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures
(docket no. 61), unless and until Plaintiffs attempt to introduce such evidence. Defendants’
Motion to Exclude Any Injuries or Symptoms of Other Persons or Animals (docket no. 148) is
DENIED for the reasons noted at the September 29, 2011 hearing. Defendants’ Motion to
Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs’ Emotional Distress (docket no. 149) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, as I will allow Plaintiffs to introduce evidence of emotional distress, but only
such evidence that can be directly connected to their alleged physical injuries. Defendants’
Motion to Exclude Evidence that Defendants Are Doctors (docket no. 150) is DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Evidence of Damage to Furniture and Personal Property (docket
no. 152) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as I will allow Plaintiffs to introduce such
evidence for the limited purpose of showing the nature and extent of alleged mold damage in the

home. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Reference to “Toxic” Mold,
Mycotoxins, or VOCs (docket no. 153) is DENIED, but I instruct the parties to refrain from
referring to specific findings contained in the mold testing reports in their opening statements.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Drs. Phillips and Cheung (docket no.
167) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, which effectively moots Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to File a Motion in Limine After the Deadline (docket no. 180). Such Motion is DENIED
as moot.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send certified copies of this Order and
accompanying Memorandum Opinion to all counsel of record.
30th
Entered this ______ day of September, 2011.