Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company, No. 2:2015cv01226 - Document 114 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 77 Motion in Limine Exclude Video Deposition of Marti George. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company Doc. 114 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A KEVIN JORD AN Pla in tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15 -12 2 6 EN SCO OFFSH ORE COMPAN Y D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ( 1) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Plaintiff Kevin J ordan’s m otion in lim ine to exclude the video deposition of Marti George as cum ulative. 1 The m otion is opposed. 2 For the reasons that follow, the m otion is D EN IED . Defendant, ENSCO Offshore Com pany, has taken the depositions of both (1) Marti George, Plaintiff’s form er m other-in-law, and (2) J oanna J ordan, Plaintiff’s ex-wife. Plaintiff m aintains “[b]oth Mrs. J ordan and Ms. George testified that Plaintiff accidently injured his left index finger with a knife and then went to work.”3 Plaintiff thus argues that “Ms. George’s testim ony is the sam e as her daughter’s” and should be excluded as cum ulative. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek to exclude J oanna J ordan’s deposition testim ony, essentially arguing that the Defendant should be lim ited to calling one or the other, but not both, at trial. As Defendant points out, Marti George’s deposition is “a m ere 11 m inutes long.”4 Furtherm ore, the Court finds the testim ony of both Mrs. J ordan and Mrs. George m ay be needed by the Defendant, given that Mrs. J ordan and the Plaintiff are divorced an d her testim ony m ay be subject to attack based on her bias against the Plaintiff. 5 The exclusion 1 R. Doc. 77. R. Doc. 85. 3 R. Doc. 77-1 at 1. 4 R. Doc. 85 at 1. 5 See R. Doc. 85 at 1– 3. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com of neither Ms. George’s nor Mrs. J ordan’s testim ony as cum ulative is warranted. The Court takes this opportunity, however, to note that tim e at trial will be lim ited, so the parties m ust m ake every effort to use their trial tim e effectively and efficiently and to avoid cum ulative testim ony. Additionally, in Plaintiff’s reply brief, Plaintiff noted that the “m eet and confer between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for ENSCO unfortunately failed to reach an agreem ent to rem ove m uch of the colloquy in Mrs. J ordan’s deposition.”6 As the Court expressed at the Pre-Trial Conferen ce, all colloquy between counsel m ust be rem oved from the deposition testim ony that will be played at trial, with no exception. To the extent colloquy between counsel rem ains in a witness’s deposition testim ony, the testim ony m ay not be presented to the jury. IT IS SO ORD ERED . N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 13 th d ay o f May, 2 0 16 . ______ ____ ______ _ ________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 6 R. Doc. 96-2 at 1. 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.
