McBride v. VF Outdoor, LLC et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting in part and reserving in part plaintiff's 36 motions in limine, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

MICHAEL MCBRIDE, as parent and
guardian for L.M., a minor child,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.
VF OUTDOOR, LLC, d/b/a LUCY, et al.,

Case No. C16-0754RSL
ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine.” Dkt. # 36.
Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties and
having heard from counsel at the pretrial conference held on May 23, 2017, the Court
finds as follows:
The parties agree, and it is therefore ORDERED, that evidence and argument
regarding the following topics shall be excluded from trial:
1. Collateral sources of benefits to plaintiff;
2. Defendant’s resources/insurance or lack thereof;
3. Effects of claims or judgments on insurance premiums or availability;
4. Appeals to the jury to place themselves in plaintiff’s position;
5. Counsel’s personal opinions;
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 1

1

6. Taxation of judgments; and

2

7. Sympathies for or apologies to plaintiff.

3

Plaintiff also seeks to exclude evidence or argument regarding bullying L.M.

4

suffered in middle school more than a year after she was injured in defendant’s store.

5

Plaintiff argues that this bullying, and the emotional distress it caused, are unrelated to her

6

scar and therefore irrelevant to her claim for damages. The Court reserves judgment on

7

this motion. If plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress is based on a general sense of

8

embarrassment at being different and/or people pointing out or asking about her scar in

9

public, the bullying may have no relevance or its probative value may be outweighed by

10

the potential psychological harm its admission at trial could cause L.M. If, however,

11

plaintiff intends to seek emotional distress damages related to what counsel calls

12

“teasing” by the same boys who, one year later, bullied L.M., the later event would be

13

relevant. Defendants would obviously want to provide a complete picture of L.M.’s

14

relationship with these boys by showing that they teased everyone about anything that

15

struck them as a vulnerability, both before and after the accident. They would also want

16

to argue that the distress L.M. feels today is the result of on-going harassment by the

17

same group of boys, not because a scar was the topic du jour for a few months.

18

Depending on how the emotional distress evidence comes in, the probative value of the

19

bullying incident may require its admission even if there are some risks to L.M.’s well-

20

being.

21
22

//

23
24

//

25
26

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 2

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motions in limine are GRANTED in
part and RESERVED in part.

3
Dated this 25th day of May, 2017.
4
5

A

6

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 3