United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
LASHINA DAVIS, ET AL.
GKD MANAGEMENT, L.P., ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiffs LaShina Davis and Terry Davis's
Motion in Limine (Doc. 34). For the reasons
that follow, the Motion (Doc. 34) is GRANTED IN PART,
DENIED IN PART, and DEFERRED IN
dispute arises from a rear-end collision on I-10 near Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. (Doc. 16, ¶ 8). An eighteen-wheeler
owned by Defendant GKD Management, L.P. struck an ambulance
carrying LaShina Davis. (Id.). Davis was providing
medical assistance to an injured patient at the time.
(Id.). She and her husband sued GKD in the 19th
Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge.
(Doc. 1-1). Davis's employer, Acadian Ambulance Service,
intervened to recoup from Defendants the workers'
compensation benefits it paid Davis as a result of the
collision. (Doc. 1-1, p. 27). Defendants invoked the
Court's diversity jurisdiction and removed the case.
(Doc. 1). Trial is set to begin on June 3, 2019. (Doc. 54).
Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence or mention of the
following: "(1) Plaintiffs' arrests; (2) evidence
not made known during discovery; (3) the time Plaintiffs'
retained their attorney; (4) the payment of medical bills and
expenses; (5) federal income tax; (6) an adverse inference
for uncalled witnesses; (7) financial hurt from an adverse
verdict; (8) probable testimony of absent witnesses; and (9)
tbe filing of Plaintiffs' Motion In Limine." (Doc.
party objecting to the admission of evidence bears the burden
of showing that the evidence is inadmissible. Lyondell
Chem. Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 608 F.3d 284, 295
(5th Cir. 2010).
LaShina Davis's Arrests
ask the Court to exclude evidence of two of LaShina
Davis's arrests. (Doc. 34-1, p. 1). Neither resulted in a
conviction and both occurred more than ten years ago.
(Id.). Defendants agree that Federal Rule of
Evidence 609 applies and precludes admission of evidence of
the arrests. (Doc. 36). The Court therefore GRANTS
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine as to LaShina Davis's
Evidence "Not Made Known" During Discovery
ask the Court exclude evidence "not made known"
during discovery. (Doc. 34-1 at p. 2). The request is
generic: Plaintiff does not identify any evidence that was
not disclosed during discovery or otherwise attempt to link
the request to this case in any way. (Id.). The
Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine as to
evidence "not made known" during discovery.
Plaintiffs' Retention of Their Attorney
another generic request, Plaintiffs asks the Court to exclude
evidence about when Plaintiffs retained counsel. (Doc. 34-1
at p. 3). Plaintiffs cite no authority to support the
request. (Id.). And Plaintiffs again make no attempt
to tailor the request to the facts of this case.
(Id.). The Court therefore DENIES, without
prejudice, Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine on the ...