Chavez Olsen v. Delcore, No. 2:2007cv00334 - Document 86 (D. Utah 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S REPUTATION (granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion in Limine). Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 9/24/2009. (ce)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION OLIVIA B. CHAVEZ OLSEN, an individual, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT S REPUTATION vs. RANDALL DELCORE, M.D., an individual, Case No. 2:07-CV-334 TS Defendant. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Defendant s Reputation. In her Motion, Plaintiff seeks to exclude testimony concerning Defendant s reputation as an orthopaedic surgeon. Defendant, in his response to Plaintiff s Motion, states that he does not intend to elicit testimony of Dr. Delcore s reputation of the type that would be prohibited by Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rather, Dr. Delcore will present relevant and admissible evidence of Dr. Delcore s high level of training and education. 1 Pursuant to Defendant s stipulation, the Court will grant Plaintiff s Motion to the extent that it seeks to preclude evidence of Defendant s reputation. However, the Court will not 1 Docket No. 76, at 1-2. 1 exclude evidence concerning Defendant s education and training. Such evidence concerning Plaintiff s credentials is both relevant and highly probative. Further, the probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect or its potential to confuse the issues or mislead the jury. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Defendant s Reputation (Docket No. 43) is GRANTED IN PART. DATED September 24, 2009. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 2

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.