Shugart v. Town and Country Grocers of Fredericktown, Missouri, Inc., No. 5:2019cv00137 - Document 46 (W.D. Ky. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 3/9/2022. Granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion in Limine. cc: Counsel(KJA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Shugart v. Town and5:19-cv-00137-TBR-LLK Country Grocers of Fredericktown, Missouri, Case Document 46Inc.Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 111 Doc. 46 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH CYNTHIA SHUGART, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. TOWN & COUNTRY GROCERS OF FREDERICKTOWN, MISSOURI, INC, Defendant. Case No. 5:19-cv-00137 (TBR) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Cynthia Shugart’s Motions in Limine (Mot. in Lim), Dkt. 41. Defendant Town & Country Grocers has not responded, and the time to do so has elapsed. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Mot. in Lim., Dkt. 41, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Shugart was walking out of a Town & Country store on July 4, 2018. See Compl., Dkt. 1-1, ¶ 3. That’s when, according to the Complaint, Shugart fell and was injured because of the negligence of Town & Country. See id. Shugart alleges that Town & Country was negligent in failing to maintain the premises in a safe condition and failing to use signage to warn customers of potential dangers. See id. ¶¶ 4–5. Shugart now brings numerous motions in limine before the Court. II. DISCUSSION A. Collateral Benefits Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference that Plaintiff has received or will receive benefits of any collateral source. See Mot. in Lim. at 1. Though disfavored, collateral benefits can 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:19-cv-00137-TBR-LLK Document 46 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 112 sometimes be admissible. See Tindle v. Hunter Marine Transp., Inc., No. 5:14-CV-00110-TBRLLK, 2016 WL 2983710, at *2 (W.D. Ky. May 20, 2016) (explaining that admission of collateral benefits usually invites error, but not when plaintiff’s testimony opens the door through affirmative testimony on direct examination). The motion is GRANTED at this time. If a party wishes to introduce collateral source evidence, he/she must first approach the bench. B. Misconduct or Criminal Activity Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference that she has been accused of, or found guilty of, any misconduct or criminal activity. See Mot. in Lim. at 2. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The parties shall first obtain approval before introducing evidence of misconduct or criminal activity. C. Employing an Attorney Plaintiff seeks to exclude the time and circumstances under which she employed an attorney. See Mot. in Lim. at 2. The Court concludes that such evidence would offer no probative value and is therefore inadmissible. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion in limine is GRANTED. D. Marriage, Divorce, or Marital Prospects of Plaintiff Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference to marriage, divorce, marital prospects of Plaintiff, and other similar matters. See Mot. in Lim. at 2. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The parties shall first obtain approval before introducing evidence of marriage, divorce, or marital prospects. 2 Case 5:19-cv-00137-TBR-LLK Document 46 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 113 E. Testimony of Witnesses Not Actually Called Plaintiff seeks an order instructing Defendant’s counsel not to suggest to the jury what would have been the testimony of any witness not actually called. See Mot. in Lim. at 2. Plaintiff’s motion in limine is GRANTED. F. Marital or Child Custody Difficulties Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference to marital difficulties, controversies relating to child custody, or marital claims, suits, or actions. See Mot. in Lim. at 2. The motion is GRANTED at this time. If a party wishes to introduce evidence of marital or child custody difficulties, he/she must first approach the bench. G. Photographs and Videotapes Plaintiff requests that Defendants be prohibited from introducing or exhibiting to the jury any photographs, including videotapes, “showing the plaintiff or her activities.” See Mot. in Lim. at 2–3. With regard to photographs, Defendant only seeks to introduce photographs of the scene of Plaintiff’s fall and photographs from Plaintiff’s Facebook page. See Def.’s Pretrial Mem., Dkt. 42, at 2. If Defendant intends to introduce photographs and videotapes showing Plaintiff or her activities or photographs from Facebook, he must first show them to counsel and the Court before placing them in evidence. This motion in limine is GRANTED. H. Payment of Judgment Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference that any individual will have to pay any judgment entered in this case. See Mot. in Lim. at 3. Plaintiff’s motion in limine is GRANTED. I. Exclude Testimony of Dr. C. Robinson Dyer, M.D. Plaintiff seeks to exclude all testimony by Dr. C. Robinson Dyer, M.D. See Mot. in Lim. at 3. Plaintiff cites two reasons for this motion. First, is Dr. Dyer’s alleged failure to acquire an 3 Case 5:19-cv-00137-TBR-LLK Document 46 Filed 03/09/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 114 accurate and fact-based understanding of Plaintiff’s medical history, diagnosis, and treatment. See id. Second, is Dr. Dyer’s alleged failure to comply with the Fed. R. Civ. P. insofar as he has failed to supply a list of his prior testimony. See id. Plaintiff’s motion in limine is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will address this issue further at the pretrial conference. Plaintiff should come to the pretrial conference prepared to articulate her objections to Dr. Dyer’s proposed testimony. Defendant should come to the pretrial conference prepared to address those objections. The Court will address these objections and responses at the pretrial conference. J. Exclude Motions Presented to the Court Plaintiff seeks to prohibit Defendant from suggesting that these motions have been presented to or ruled upon by the Court. See Mot. in Lim. at 4. Plaintiff’s motion in limine is GRANTED. III. CONCLUSION For the above stated reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Mot. in Lim., Dkt. 41, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS SO ORDERED March 9, 2022 4
]]>
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.
