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.

Franco v. Mabe Trucking Co.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

March 21, 2019

DAVID FRANCO
v.
MABE TRUCKING CO., ET AL.

          KAREN L. HAYES, Judge

          RULING

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending here is Plaintiff David Franco's (“Franco”) Omnibus Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 138]. Defendants Mabe Trucking Co., Inc., (“Mabe”); Richard Agee (“Agee”); and National Interstate Insurance Company have filed an opposition [Doc. No. 150].

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident. On or about November 24, 2015, Franco's vehicle was involved in a collision with an 18-wheel truck owned by Mabe and being driven by Agee on Interstate 20 in Louisiana.

         Franco alleges that the accident was caused by the negligent operation of the Mabe truck by Agee in pulling onto Interstate 20 directly in front of him. Defendants contend the accident was caused solely by the negligence of Franco in not paying attention and rear-ending the Mabe truck.

         On November 22, 2016, Franco filed suit against Mabe in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On July 6, 2017, the suit was transferred to this Court. On May 3, 2018, Franco filed a Supplemental and Amended Complaint adding Agee and National Interstate Insurance Company as defendants.

         Franco presents nine (9) subparts in his motion in limine for the Court's consideration. The Court will consider each in turn.

         A. Franco' Prior Motor Vehicle Accidents

         Franco moves the Court to exclude evidence of his two motor vehicle collisions prior to the subject wreck-one in 2005 and another in 2012. Defendants object.

         The Court has previously found that evidence of these two prior accidents is not relevant and not admissible [Doc. No. 165]. Therefore, for the reasons expressed in that Ruling, subpart (A) to Franco's motion in limine is GRANTED.

         B. Statements and Images from Franco's Facebook Account

         Franco moves the Court to exclude 141 pages of material purportedly taken from his Facebook social media networking account, which include pictures, jokes, and comments by other Facebook users. Franco objects that all writings and comments contained in this material are hearsay; that all images are unauthenticated; and that some of the images include crude jokes which are irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. Additionally, Franco objects to images taken from the inside of a vehicle as irrelevant, as more prejudicial than probative, and as improper character evidence. He also objects to pictures of guns as irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative.

         Franco requests that the Court prohibit Defendants from trying to admit, allude to, or present any Facebook evidence without first approaching the Court outside the presence of the jury for a conference.

         Defendants respond that, as to Franco's authenticity objection, this issue can be remedied as Franco cam be presented with his own Facebook pages at trial and authenticate them. Further, as to Franco's objections that certain images, photographs, comments, crude jokes, and pictures of guns are irrelevant and/or prejudicial, Defendants ask the Court to reserve judgment on their admissibility until the time of trial.

         As to the images taken from the inside of a vehicle, Defendants contend that one issue at trial will be whether Franco was distracted immediately prior to the accident. Some of the photographs show Franco inside his tractor trailer and using his cell phone to take pictures while behind the wheel. The use of a hand-held mobile ...


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.