Gentry v. Hunter Marine Transport, Inc., No. 5:2008cv00043 - Document 83 (W.D. Ky. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting in part 66 Motion in Limine; granting in part 70 Motion in Limine. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 6/18/2010. cc:counsel (KJA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CASE NO.: 5:08-CV-00043-TBR CASEY GENTRY PLAINTIFF v. HUNTER MARINE TRANSPORT, INC. DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff s Motion in Limine (DN 70). Defendant has filed a response (DN 77). This matter is now ripe for adjudication. Also before the Court is Defendant s Motion in Limine (DN 66). Plaintiff has filed a response (DN 79). This matter is now ripe for adjudication. DISCUSSION Plaintiff has filed a boiler plate motion in limine that deals with twenty three issues. Defendant has responded. Many or most of the twenty three issues deal with matters covered by previous order of the Court. The Court discourages such boiler plate motions. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: As to Plaintiff s motion: 1. The parties shall make no mention of any offer of settlement that s been made without first approaching the Court. 2. The parties may raise this objection at trial if it occurs. 3. The parties may raise this objection at trial if it occurs. 4. The parties may raise this objection at trial if it occurs. 5. The parties may raise this objection at trial if it occurs. 6. The parties may raise this objection at trial if it occurs. 7. Granted as to both parties. 8. The parties may raise this objection at trial if it occurs. 9. The parties shall approach the Court before mentioning this to the jury. 10. This is too broad; the parties shall approach the Court before offering this evidence. 11. The parties shall approach the Court before offering this evidence. 12. The parties shall approach the Court before offering this evidence. 13. The parties shall approach the Court before offering this evidence. 14. Granted. 15. The parties shall approach the Court before offering this evidence. 16. The Court reserves ruling on this issue for trial. 17. Granted. 18. Granted. 19. This is too broad; the Court reserves ruling on this issue for trial. 20. The parties shall approach the Court before offering this evidence. 21. The parties shall approach the Court before offering this evidence. 22. The parties shall approach the Court before offering this evidence. 23. The Court needs to better understand the relevance of Plaintiff s prior back injury to his termination by Hunter Marine. Defendants argue it is relevant to the issue of contributory negligence. Defendant needs to provide case law on this issue. The Court reserves ruling until the date of trial. The prior back injury otherwise may be relevant to the issue of causation. As to Defendant s motion: 2 1. The Court notes hearsay is generally inadmissable. The parties may raise this objection at trial if it occurs. 2. Any statements made during settlement negotiations are inadmissible. The Court is unaware of the specific context of these statements and reserves ruling on this issue until trial. June 18, 2010 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.