Shinnick et al v. Ram Kabir, LLC, No. 5:2015cv00160 - Document 33 (W.D. Ky. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 11/23/2016 granting 22 Motion in Limine cc: Counsel(KJA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Shinnick et al v. Ram Kabir, LLC Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-00160-TBR PEGGY A. SHINNICK, et. al., Plaintiffs v. RAM KABIR, LLC, d/b/a SUPER 8 MOTEL Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant Ram Kabir, LLC d/b/a Super 8 Motel’s First Motion in Limine Regarding Insurance. [DN 22.] Plaintiffs Peggy A. Shinnick and Gilbert Gagraedt did not respond. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND This matter arises out of the alleged fall of Plaintiff Gilbert Dagraedt at Defendant’s hotel in Cadiz, Kentucky. The sole issue for trial is whether Plaintiff was of “unsound mind” at the time of the alleged fall, which would toll the statute of limitations codified in KRS § 413.170 and allow Plaintiff to proceed with this action against Defendant. Further detail may be found in this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. [DN 19.] STANDARD Using the inherent authority to manage the course of trials before it, this Court may exclude irrelevant, inadmissible, or prejudicial evidence through in limine rulings. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 103(c)); Louzon v. Ford Motor Co., 718 F.3d 556, 561 (6th Cir. 2013); Mahaney ex rel. Estate of Kyle v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 1 Dockets.Justia.com 835 F. Supp. 2d 299, 303 (W.D. Ky. 2011). Unless such evidence is patently “inadmissible for any purpose,” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997), though, the “better practice” is to defer evidentiary rulings until trial, Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975), so that “questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context,” Gresh v. Waste Servs. of Am., Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 702, 706 (E.D. Ky. 2010). A ruling in limine is “no more than a preliminary, or advisory, opinion.” United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Luce, 713 F.2d 1236, 1239 (6th Cir. 1983), aff'd, 469 U.S. 38). Consequently, the Court may revisit its in limine rulings at any time and “for whatever reason it deems appropriate.” Id. (citing Luce, 713 F.2d at 1239). DISCUSSION Defendant seeks an “Order prohibiting the parties from discussing the presence or absence of liability insurance in the instant case. Defendant raises this matter due to plaintiff’s deposition testimony wherein he indicated that he was seeking insurance money to have further medical procedures done.” [DN 22 at 1.] Federal Rule of Evidence 411 provides: Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control. Fed. R. Evid. 411. In reliance on this Rule, Defendant claims that, as “[t]here is no question of agency, ownership, or control of the premises” at issue in this case, the Court should prohibit all mention of liability insurance. [DN 22 at 1.] To the extent Plaintiff may seek to introduce the existence of liability insurance as a means of proving that Defendant was negligent or acted wrongfully, the Court agrees such 2 evidence must be excluded pursuant to FRE 411. The Court will therefore grant Defendant’s motion on that basis. However, should some other purpose arise at trial for which evidence of Defendant’s liability insurance may be admissible under Rule 411, the Court will defer its ruling on those issues until that time. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s first motion in limine regarding insurance [DN 22] is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. cc: Counsel of Record November 23, 2016 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.
