Gillis et al v. Murphy-Brown, LLC, No. 7:2014cv00185 - Document 223 (E.D.N.C. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 101 Motion in Limine. However, to the extent that defendant seeks to expand the scope of those earlier rulings to exclude deposition testimony of Dr. Wing not previously excluded by the court, the motion is denied. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/9/2018. (Herrmann, L.)

Download PDF
Gillis et al v. Murphy-Brown, LLC Doc. 223 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION CASE NO: 7:14-CV-185-BR ANNJEANETTE GILLIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MURPHY-BROWN, LLC d/b/a SMITHFIELD HOG PRODUCTION DIVISION, Defendant. Pending before the court is defendant’s motion in limine to exclude worker health-related information. (ECF No. 101). In the related cases of McGowan v. Murphy-Brown, LLC, Civil Action No. 7:14-182-BR, and Artis v. Murphy-Brown, LLC, Civil Action No. 7:14-237-BR, the court granted similar motions. See ECF No. 102. For the same reasons expressed in those earlier cases, defendant’s motion is GRANTED in that any worker health-related evidence previously excluded by the court is likewise excluded herein. However, to the extent that defendant seeks to expand the scope of those earlier rulings to exclude deposition testimony of Dr. Wing not previously excluded by the court, the motion is DENIED. Viewed in context, Dr. Wing’s testimony does not delve too deeply into issues of occupational exposure and serves to lay a foundation for his testimony in other respects including his qualifications for the opinions he offers. Therefore, the Dockets.Justia.com probative value of Dr. Wing’s references to studies regarding occupational exposures is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Murphy-Brown. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2018. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 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.