Williams et al v. Mack et al, No. 2:2013cv06414 - Document 93 (E.D. La. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER and REASONS - - Presently before the Court are several motions in limine. Having considered the parties' submissions, IT IS ORDERED that: Defendants' "Motion in Limine to Exclude Orders From Other Cases Regarding Dr. J. Monroe La borde, M.D." (Rec. Doc. 26) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Defendants' "Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinion Testimony by Dr. Michael Haydel, M.D." (Rec. Doc. 27) is DENIED as MOOT; Defendants' "Omnibus Motion for in Limine Evidentiary Ruling (Rec. Doc. 31) seeks to exclude certain evidence is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and Plaintiffs' "Motion to Strike Supplemental Expert Report and to Limit the Trial Testimony of Dr. Monroe Laborde" (Rec. Doc. 28) is GRANTED, as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 11/17/2014. (cbs) (NEF: MAG-5)
Download PDF
Williams et al v. Mack et al Doc. 93 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ROSE WILLIAMS, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 13-6414 PERRY MACK, ET AL. SECTION "N" (5) ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court are several motions in limine. See Rec. Docs. 26, 27, 28 and 31. Having considered the parties' submissions, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Defendants' "Motion in Limine to Exclude Orders From Other Cases Regarding Dr. J. Monroe Laborde, M.D." (Rec. Doc. 26) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent that Plaintiffs may bring such orders, if relevant, to the attention of the Court outside of the hearing of the jury, but not otherwise. (2) As discussed with counsel on October 22, 2014, following oral argument, Defendants' "Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinion Testimony by Dr. Michael Haydel, M.D." (Rec. Doc. 27) is DENIED as MOOT, given the Court's ruling that none of the parties' experts will be permitted to opine that the September 3, 2012 motor vehicle accident caused (or did not cause) Rose Williams' claimed injuries. (3) Defendants' "Omnibus Motion for in Limine Evidentiary Ruling (Rec. Doc. 31) seeks to exclude certain evidence. The motion is GRANTED as unopposed relative to the exclusion of any reference to "unrelated and irrelevant media coverage or 'scandals'" involving Comcast and any evidence of the traffic citation issued to Perry Mack. Regarding testimony from Melvin Dockets.Justia.com Williams, Brittany Williams, Rose Wade, and Lillie May Williams, Defendants' motion is GRANTED to the extent that a hearsay exception must be shown to apply to any hearsay evidence and a proper foundation must be established for lay opinion testimony. Defendants' motion is DENIED as MOOT regarding Dr. Haydel for the same reasons stated above relative to the motion bearing record document number 27. The omnibus motion also is DENIED to the extent that it seeks a pre-trial exclusion of any particular evidence as cumulative and repetitive. Nevertheless, the Court expects all parties to abstain from the needless presentation of cumulative evidence and, if appropriate, will sustain an objection properly asserted at trial, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, on such grounds. Finally, Defendants' motion is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to exclude any and all references to Ace Insurance Company during trial. Given that Ace Insurance Company is a named defendant to this action, pursuant to the Louisiana Direct Action statute, La. R.S. 22:1269, Plaintiffs are entitled to inform the jury that Ace is a defendant because it is the liability insurer of co-defendants Comcast and Perry Mack. Evidence of the contents of the policy, including the amount of coverage provided, however, shall not be admitted unless the applicable requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 411 are satisfied. Further, this ruling is without prejudice to Defendants' right to object at trial, if warranted, to the admission of particular evidence relative to Ace or the insurance coverage provided by it. (4) Plaintiffs' "Motion to Strike Supplemental Expert Report and to Limit the Trial Testimony of Dr. Monroe Laborde" (Rec. Doc. 28) is GRANTED. As reflected in the parties' submissions, Plaintiffs' counsel did not receive the supplemental report until after the applicable deadline had passed. Further, the images discussed in the supplemental report were available long 2 before the report deadline. Defendants, however, offer no good reason as to why the supplemental report was not prepared and produced timely.1 Finally, Dr. Laborde's opinion is unchanged in the supplemental report and, moreover, is consistent with the opinion offered by Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Cenac, regarding the images. Accordingly, on the showing made, the Court finds the supplemental report should be stricken and Dr. Laborde's testimony limited to the opinions set forth in his original, timely produced, report. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of November 2014. ________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Clerk to Copy: U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael North 1 Dr. Laborde's original report states that he would like to review imaging that he did not have at the time he authored the report. See Rec. Doc. 28-4. Although Defendants' memorandum indicates that the imaging was later provided to him by counsel, the actual transmittal date of the imaging is not provided. See Rec. Doc. 67, p. 2. 3