Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company, No. 2:2015cv01226 - Document 165 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 73 Motion in Limine Exclude Video Depositions of Barclay and McGee; granting 75 Motion in Limine Exclude Evidence of Alleged Drug Seeking Behavior. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company Doc. 165 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’s m otion in lim ine to exclude as cum ulative the video depositions of Dr. Vivek Barclay and Darius Randall McGee, FNP. 1 Also before the Court is Plaintiff Kevin J ordan’s m otion in lim ine to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior. 2 The m otions are opposed. 3 For the reasons that follow, the m otion to exclude the video depositions of Dr. Barclay and FNP McGee is D EN IED , and the m otion to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior is GRAN TED . I. VIDEO DEPOSITIONS OF DR. BARCLAY AND FNP M CGEE Plaintiff argues that the depositions of Dr. Vivek Barclay and FNP Darius Randall McGee are cum ulative of Karen Parker’s deposition. 4 As a result, and because the depositions of Dr. Barclay and FNP McGee, com bined, total 131 pages, but Karen Parker’s deposition testim ony only spans 54 pages, Plaintiff argues the Court should exclude “the 131 pages of testim ony from Dr. Barclay and Mr. McGee in favor of the 54 pages from Ms. Parker.”5 The Defendant disagrees that the depositions are cum ulative, noting that Dr. Barclay an d FNP McGee treated the Plaintiff at a different clinic and over a different period of tim e than did Ms. Parker. Defendant also points out that all three depositions 1 R. Doc. 73. R. Doc. 75. 3 R. Docs. 82, 8 9. 4 R. Doc. 73-1 at 1– 2. 5 R. Doc. 73-1 at 1– 2. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com are needed to establish that, at different tim es, Plaintiff sought m edical treatm ent for right shoulder and back pain but never com plained of an injury to or pain in his left index finger. 6 Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the depositions, the Court finds that the depositions are not cum ulative. II. ALLEGED DRUG SEEKING BEHAVIOR The Defendant argues that the “Plaintiff has engaged in drug seeking behavior, m anipulating and deceiving his treating physicians to obtain m edication.”7 According to Defendant, evidence of Plaintiff’s drug seeking behavior is relevant and should be presented to the jury. Defendant argues in support that Plaintiff’s drug seeking behavior “goes to his credibility and . . . whether he has experienced pain and injury as he claim s in this suit.”8 Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that the Court should exclude this eviden ce because it is “irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and not supported by expert testim ony.”9 Irrespective of any lim ited probative value it m ay have, eviden ce of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior is unfairly prejudicial and will not be allowed to go before the jury. Federal Rule of Evidence 40 3 provides: “The court m ay exclude relevant eviden ce if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or m ore of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, m isleading the jury, undue delay, wasting tim e, or n eedlessly presenting cum ulative eviden ce.”10 Defendant has failed to establish that the probative value of any evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior outweighs its prejudicial effect. Such evidence would unfairly prejudice the Plaintiff and distract the jury from the fundam ental issues in this case, i.e., whether 6 Id. R. Doc. 89 at 4. 8 Id. at 5. 9 R. Doc. 75-1 at 1. 10 F ED . R. E VID . 40 3. 7 2 Plaintiff suffered injury on March 3, 20 13 and, if so, to what extent. Evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior is excluded from trial and m ay not be brought before the jury. In accordance with the Court’s ruling that eviden ce of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior is inadm issible at trial, the following portions of the depositions of Dr. Barclay, FNP McGee, and FNP Parker are hereby excluded under this Order & Reasons and m ay not be presented to the jury at trial: 11 Dr. Barclay • • • • • • • • • FNP McGee • • • FNP Parker 12 • Page 15, line 23, through Page 16, line 5 Page 16, line 10 , through Page 16, line 21 Page 19, line 6, through Page 19, line 9 Page 19, line 18, through Page 20 , line 5 Page 24, line 5, through Page 24, line 12 Page 41, line 10 , through Page 41, line 18 Page 42, line 17, through Page 45, line 14 Page 48, line 25, through Page 51, line 6 Page 75, line 12, through Page 92, line 5 Page 17, line 10 , through Page 20 , line 9 Page 27, line 8 , through Page 27, line 10 Page 32, line 7, through Page 32, line 10 Page 15, line 25, through Page 16, line 6 11 Additional portions of these depositions m ay already have been deleted by agreem ent of the parties. Plaintiff filed a separate objection to a designation of FNP Karen Parker’s deposition. See R. Doc. 123. The objection is to Page 45, lin e 24, through Page 46, line 16. This excerpt of Parker’s deposition is excluded based on the Court’s ruling herein. As a result, Plaintiff’s objection to to Page 45, line 24, through Page 46, line 16, of Parker’s deposition is SU STAIN ED , as set forth herein . 12 3 • • • • • • • • • • Page 20 , line 8 , through Page 32, line 21 Page 37, line 13, through Page 37, line 16 Page 39, line 1, through Page 39, line 6 Page 39, line 16, through Page 43, line 25 Page 44, line 4, through Page 44, line 16 Page 44, line 24, through Page 45, line 1 Page 45, line 24, through Page 47, line 6 Page 47, line 24, through Page 48, line 25 Page 51, line 2, through Page 51, line 18 Page 52, line 17, through Page 52, line 18 . CON CLU SION IT IS ORD ERED that the m otion in lim ine to exclude the video depositions of Dr. Barclay and FNP McGee as cum ulative is D EN IED . 13 IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that the m otion in lim ine to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior is GRAN TED , and the deposition s of Dr. Barclay, FNP McGee, and FNP Parker are to be excerpted, as set forth above. 14 N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 0 th d ay o f May, 2 0 16 . ____________ _______ __________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 13 14 R. Doc. 73. R. Doc. 75. 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.
