Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company, No. 2:2015cv01226 - Document 180 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS regarding Defendant's 173 Motion for Clarification of Order and Reasons in Rec. Doc. 165, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/22/2016. (tsf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company Doc. 180 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 Defendant ENSCO Offshore Com pany’s m otion for clarification of the Court’s Order & Reasons excluding eviden ce of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seekin g behavior. 1 Plaintiff Kevin J ordan was granted an opportunity to respond to the m otion for clarification but has not done so. On May 20 , 20 16, the Court granted Plaintiff’s m otion in lim ine to exclude eviden ce of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior. 2 The Defendant planned to argue at trial that the “Plaintiff has engaged in drug seeking behavior, m anipulating and deceiving his treating physicians to obtain m edication.”3 Fearing the Defendant would m ake such an argum ent to the jury, the Plaintiff filed a m otion in lim ine seeking to exclude evidence of his alleged drug seeking behavior. 4 The Defendant opposed the m otion, arguing that eviden ce of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior “goes to his credibility and . . . whether he has experienced any pain and injury as he claim s in this suit.”5 The Court granted Plaintiff’s m otion, excluding evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior and ruling that such evidence m ay not be brought before the jury. The Court reasoned 1 R. Doc. 173. The instant m otion seeks clarification of Record Docum ent 165, the Order & Reasons grantin g Plaintiff’s m otion in lim ine to exclude evidence of Plain tiff’s alleged drug seekin g behavior. 2 R. Doc. 165. 3 R. Doc. 89 at 4. 4 The m otion in lim ine is on the record at Record Docum ent 75. 5 R. Doc. 89 at 5. 1 Dockets.Justia.com that such evidence would unfairly prejudice the Plaintiff and distract the jury from the fundam ental issues in this case, i.e., whether Plaintiff suffered injury on March 3, 20 13 and, if so, to what extent. Defendant now seeks clarification of the Court’s ruling. I. P RE -ACCIDENT With respect to Plaintiff’s pre-accident m edical treatm ent, m edical records, an d alleged drug-seeking behavior, the Court refers the Defendant to its Order & Reasons on the m otion in lim ine. 6 Pursuant to that ruling, the Defen dant is precluded altogether from cross-exam ining Plaintiff on these issues or in troducing related exhibits into eviden ce. II. P OST-ACCIDENT With respect to Plaintiff’s post-accident m edical treatm ent and m edical records, the Defendant m ay cross-exam ine the Plaintiff on (1) his visits to doctors’ offices and hospitals, (2) the drugs he was prescribed, and (3) whether he accurately inform ed his doctors and other m edical care providers of other doctors he was seeing and other m edications he had been prescribed. The Defendant m ay not, however, question witnesses or elicit testim ony about Plaintiff’s alleged drug addiction or drug seeking behavior. This will allow the Defendant to adequately cross-exam in e the Plaintiff on his credibility and propensity toward truthfulness without delving into the excluded topic of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior. N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 2 n d d ay o f May, 2 0 16 . ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT JU D GE 6 See R. Doc. 165. 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.
