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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?