Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Beary v. Deese

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

July 16, 2018

W. CHRISTOPHER BEARY
v.
DAVID DEESE, et al.

         SECTION A(5)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          JAY C. ZAINEY JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a Motion to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Related to Supplemental Report (Rec. Doc. 81) filed by Defendants: David W. Deese (“Deese”), Quinco Electrical, Inc., Quinco Electrical of Dallas, Inc., Quinco Electrical of Georgia, Inc., Quinco Electrical of North Carolina, Inc., and Quinco Services, Inc. (collectively referred to as the “Quinco Companies”). Plaintiff W. Christopher Beary opposes this motion (Rec. Doc. 90) and Defendants have replied. (Rec. Doc. 43).

         Also, before the Court is a Motion to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Related to Supplemental Report (Rec. Doc. 94) filed by Plaintiff. Defendants oppose this motion (Rec. Doc. 98) and Plaintiff has replied. (Rec. Doc. 107).

         Also, before the Court is a Motion to Exclude Testimony of Kevin Schneider and James Aldridge (Rec. Doc. 95) filed by Plaintiff. Defendants have filed a response to this motion. (Rec. Doc. 99).

         Also, before the Court is a Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's Arrest, Criminal Charges or Disciplinary Proceedings (Rec. Doc. 96) filed by Plaintiff. Defendants oppose this motion (Rec. Doc. 100) and Plaintiff has replied. (Rec. Doc. 106).

         Trial for this matter is set to commence on October 15, 2018. Having considered the motions and memoranda of counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Related to Supplemental Report (Rec. Doc. 81) is DENIED for the reasons set forth below; Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Related to Supplemental Report (Rec. Doc. 94) is DENIED for the reasons set forth below; Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Kevin Schneider and James Aldridge (Rec. Doc. 95) is DISMISSED AS MOOT for the reasons set forth below; and Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's Arrest, Criminal Charges or Disciplinary Proceedings (Rec. Doc. 96) is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.

         I. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Related to Supplemental Report (Rec. Doc. 81)

Wilson A LaGraize's, Jr.'s supplemental report and the information contained therein related to alleged prior bad acts of Quinco or its employees is irrelevant to the matter at hand and should be excluded in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence.

(Rec. Doc. 81-1, pp. 1-2). Defendants present three arguments in support of their position that Mr. LaGraize's supplemental report should be excluded from being used as evidence. First, Defendants argue that the opinions offered in Mr. LaGraize's supplemental report are irrelevant, and should thus be excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 402.[1] Second, Defendants contend that Mr. LaGraize's supplemental report is an impermissible attempt to use extrinsic evidence to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct to attack the witness's character for truthfulness.[2] (Rec. Doc. 81-1, p. 3). Third, Defendants argue that Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a) also prevents the admission of Mr. LaGraize's testimony because his testimony consists of unfounded legal conclusions. (Rec. Doc. 81-1, p. 4).

         Addressing Defendants' first argument, the Court finds that Mr. LaGraize's supplemental report and his accompanying testimony are relevant. The Court first notes that Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides the proper analysis for determining whether evidence is relevant or irrelevant. Rule 401 provides:

Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.