Belle v. New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Commission, No. 2:2009cv02757 - Document 38 (E.D. La. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS dismissing as moot 29 Motion in Limine; granting 30 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 2/5/10. (plh, )

Download PDF
Belle v. New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Commission Doc. 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GLENN BELLE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 09-2757 NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC BELT RAILROAD COMMISSION SECTION: “C” (2) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court are two Motions in Limine by defendant New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Commission. (Rec. Docs. 29, 30). The motions are before the Court on the briefs without oral argument. After reviewing the memoranda of the parties, the record in the case, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Defendant's motion, Rec. Doc. 30, and DISMISSES as MOOT Defendant's motion, Rec. Doc. 29. Motion in Limine to Exclude Part of the Testimony of Dr. Kenneth Adatto New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Commission (“NOPB”) moves to exclude selected portions of Dr. Kenneth Adatto’s testimony. Page 42:1 – p. 44:10 GRANTED. The statements in question call for speculation outside of the doctor’s area of expertise. Page 44:22 – p. 45:12 GRANTED. The statements in question call for speculation outside of the doctor’s area Dockets.Justia.com of expertise. Page 50:1 - 21 EXCLUDED, per NOPB’s motion. Page 50:22 – 52:22 GRANTED. The statements in question call for speculation outside of the doctor’s area of expertise. Motion in Limine to Exclude Part of Dr. Donald Dietze's Trial Testimony The Court has been informed that this Motion is now MOOT. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Motion in Limine (Rec. Doc. 30) is GRANTED and defendant's Motion in Limine (Rec. Doc. 29) is DISMISSED as MOOT. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of February, 2010. _______________________________________ HELEN G. BERRIGAN 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.