Kumar v. Convenience Retailers LLC et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying in part and otherwise reserving plaintiff's 23 Motions in Limine, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

_______________________________________
)
RAJ KUMAR,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CONVENIENCE RETAILERS LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C16-0364RSL
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine.” Dkt. # 23. Having

15

reviewed the memoranda, declaration, and exhibit submitted by the parties, the Court finds as

16

follows:

17

(1) Voir Dire

18

The procedures used during voir dire will be discussed at the pretrial conference.

19

(2) Admissibility of Witness Statements

20

Plaintiff seeks a pretrial determination that he may testify regarding statements Raveen

21

Lal, Raj Prasaad, and Jose Muchaca made to him. Although it seems likely that plaintiff will be

22

able to lay a sufficient foundation for the admission of the out-of-court statements of defendant’s

23

employees, the Court reserves this issue for trial.

24

(3) Medical Record

25

In his pretrial statement, plaintiff identified an August 2015 medical record in which Dr.

26

Sharma notes that plaintiff “seem[s] to have stress related to the job loss” that may be causing
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

insomnia and elevated blood sugar levels. Decl. of C.N. Coby Cohen (Dkt. # 26), Ex. 5. For the

2

reasons discussed in the “Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motions in Limine,” Dr. Sharma

3

will not testify at trial, and plaintiff cannot rely on the medical record itself to prove the truth of

4

the matters asserted therein. The document may, however, be admissible if plaintiff’s credibility

5

is challenged and he uses the document to rebut an express or implied charge that he recently

6

fabricated his complaint of stress.

7

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motions in limine are DENIED in part and
8

otherwise reserved.
9
10

Dated this 27th day of October, 2017.
11
12

A
Robert S. Lasnik

13

United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE

-2-