Anderson et al v. Ford Motor Company et al, No. 2:2006cv00741 - Document 480 (D. Utah 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting 409 Motion in Limine; granting 443 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 9/11/2014. (blh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH ARVA ANDERSON, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE COMMENTS ON THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF A CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY., et al, Defendants. Case No. 2:06-CV-741 TS District Judge Ted Stewart This matter is before the Court on Defendant Sepco Corporation s Motion in Limine to Preclude Comments Upon the Presence or Absence of Corporate Representative (Docket No. 409) and Defendant Flowserve Corporation s (f/k/a Durco International, Inc.) Motion in Limine to Preclude Comments Upon the Presence or Absence of Corporate Representative (Docket No. 443). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants Motions. Federal Rule of Evidence 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence that has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and . . . the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 limit admissible evidence to relevant evidence that has probative value not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. The presence or absence of a corporate representative has little probative value, if any, to any fact of consequence in determining the action. Commenting on the absence of a corporate 1 representative could be highly prejudicial and confuse or mislead the jury. Therefore, the Court will not allow either party to comment on the presence or absence of corporate representatives unless the commenting party can demonstrate the relevance and admissibility of such comments under Rules 401, 402, and 403. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Motions in Limine to Preclude Comments Upon the Presence or Absence of Corporate Representative (Docket Nos. 409 and 443) are GRANTED as set forth above. DATED this 11th day of September, 2014. BY THE COURT: Ted Stewart 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.
