Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Laws v. Stevens Transport, Inc.

United States District Court, Sixth Circuit

September 11, 2013

BENJAMIN LAWS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER

GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the following filings:

(1) Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude certain opinions of defense expert Lane S. Vaningen (ECF No. 96) and Defendants' memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 128);

(2) Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude other accidents or traffic citations involving Benjamin Laws, Jr. (ECF No. 97) and Defendants' memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 127);

(3) Plaintiffs' motion in limine to regarding a claimed failure to utilize a seatbelt by Benjamin Laws, Jr. (ECF No. 98) and Defendants' memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 125);

(4) Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude Benjamin Laws, Jr.'s prior medical history (ECF No. 99) and Defendants' memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 127);

(5) Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude Benjamin Laws, Jr.'s prior drug use or addiction (ECF No. 100) and Defendants' memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 127);

(6) Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude Benjamin Laws, Jr.'s prior criminal history and convictions (ECF No. 101) and Defendants' memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 126);

(7) Plaintiffs' omnibus motion in limine (ECF No. 102) and Defendants' memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 131);

(8) Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude certain opinions of defense expert Douglas R. Morr (ECF No. 103) and Defendants' memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 129);

(9) Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude comparative fault of Benjamin Laws, Jr. in causing collision (ECF No. 104) and Defendants' memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 130);

(10) Defendants' motion in limine to exclude life care planner, Sheryl Bunce (ECF No. 119) and Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition (ECF No.137); and

(11) Defendants' motion in limine to prevent Plaintiffs herein from presenting cumulative testimony and to prevent certain designated experts from expressing opinions outside of their fields of expertise (ECF No. 120) and Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 138).

The Court shall address each motion in turn.

I. Standard Involved

A motion in limine is a pre-trial mechanism by which this Court can give the parties advance notice of the evidence upon which they may or may not rely to prove their theories of the case at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984). To obtain the exclusion of evidence under such a motion, a party must prove that the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. See Ind. Ins. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d at 846; Koch, 2 F.Supp.2d at 1388; cf. Luce, 469 U.S. at 41. Additionally, "[u]nless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.