Hall, Katherine v. Boston Scientific Corp.

Filing 116

ORDER granting 102 Motion for Clarification, denying as moot 93 Motion to Permit Live Trial Testimony Via Contemporaneous Transmission. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 9/22/2015. (arw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - KATHERINE L. HALL,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
15-cv-338-bbc
v.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP.,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Two motions are ready for review in this personal injury case scheduled for trial on
October 13, 2015. First, plaintiff has asked whether the trial will be bifurcated. Dkt. #102
This court’s general practice is to bifurcate the liability and damages phases of a trial unless
the parties reach an agreement to the contrary. Although plaintiff says that “neither party
has requested bifurcation,” defendant’s proposed jury instructions and special verdict form
are structured for a bifurcated trial. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for clarification is
GRANTED as follows: at this point, I will assume that the trial will be bifurcated unless the
parties file a stipulation for a nonbifurcated trial.
Second, plaintiff has filed a motion to allow her treating physician to testify through
a video transmission. Dkt. #93. However, plaintiff does not explain why she failed to
include this request with her previous motion to allow several other witnesses to testify the
same way.

In any event, plaintiff states in her reply brief that the physician lives in

1

Wisconsin and will not object to a trial subpoena.

Because plaintiff does not need

permission from the court to request a trial subpoena from the clerk of court, plaintiff’s
motion to allow her physician to testify remotely is DENIED as moot.
Entered this 22d day of September, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2