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.

Davis v. GKD Management, LP

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

December 20, 2018

LASHINA DAVIS, ET AL.
v.
GKD MANAGEMENT, L.P., ET AL. CIVIL ACTION

          RULING AND ORDER

          BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before 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 PART.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This 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).

         Now, 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. 34).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. LaShina Davis's Arrests

         Plaintiffs 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 arrests.

         B. Evidence "Not Made Known" During Discovery

         Plaintiffs 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.

         C. Plaintiffs' Retention of Their Attorney

         In 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 ...


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.