Walters et al v. Flint et al, No. 5:2017cv10164 - Document 580 (E.D. Mich. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 501 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

Download PDF
Walters et al v. Flint et al Doc. 580 Case 5:17-cv-10164-JEL-KGA ECF No. 580, PageID.42538 Filed 01/05/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re Flint Water Cases Judith E. Levy United States District Judge __________________________________/ This Order Relates To: Bellwether I Cases Case No. 17-10164 __________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, INC., AND VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERICA OPERATING SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS OF MIRA KRISHNAN [501] Before the Court is one of thirteen motions in limine filed by Veolia North America, LLC, Veolia North America, Inc., and Veolia Water North America Operating Services, LLC’s (collectively “VNA”) in anticipation of the first Flint Water bellwether trial. This motion seeks Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:17-cv-10164-JEL-KGA ECF No. 580, PageID.42539 Filed 01/05/22 Page 2 of 3 to exclude the causation opinions offered by Dr. Mira Krishnan, Plaintiffs’ expert psychologist. Motions in limine “are meant to deal with discrete evidentiary issues related to trial.” Dunn ex. rel. Alberry v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 246 F.R.D. 266, 274-75 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (collecting cases). This motion does not do so. As VNA acknowledges,1 Plaintiffs have repeatedly and unambiguously withdrawn Dr. Krishnan’s causation testimony. In limine motion practice without any relevance to evidentiary issues in controversy borders on the frivolous. There is clearly no need to litigate the admissibility of testimony that all parties agree will not be presented at trial. Accordingly, VNA’s motion to exclude Dr. Krishnan’s causation testimony is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED, Dated: January 5, 2022 Ann Arbor, Michigan s/Judith E. Levy JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge 1 See ECF No. 501, PageID.37560 (VNA’s motion) (“Throughout the discovery process, Plaintiffs have represented to the Court and VNA that they would not rely upon Dr. Krishnan’s causation opinions.”) 2 Case 5:17-cv-10164-JEL-KGA ECF No. 580, PageID.42540 Filed 01/05/22 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 5, 2022. s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager 3

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.