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.

Somerlott v. McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

January 8, 2018

BENJAMIN SOMERLOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
MCNEILUS TRUCK AND MANUFACTURING INC, Defendant.

          ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

          Marsha J. Pechman, United States District Judge.

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (Dkt. No. 105) and Defendant's Motions in Limine (Dkt. No. 107.) Having reviewed the Motions, the Responses (Dkt. Nos. 115, 117), and all related papers, the Court rules as follows:

         I. Plaintiff's Motions in Limine

         Motion in Limine No. 1 seeks to prohibit any mention of “[a]ny proximate cause opinions by any of the Defense expert witnesses that were not properly disclosed in Rule 26 disclosures.” Plaintiff does not identify with sufficient specificity those opinions it seeks to exclude. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 is DENIED.

         Motion in Limine No. 2 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny mention of the Plaintiff's L&I claim regarding his right wrist including any written document that describes or references the claim.” Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 is GRANTED, with the exception that medical records generated in connection with Plaintiff's L&I claim be redacted of all references to the L&I claim.

         Motion in Limine No. 3 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny mention of the L&I [medical examinations] regarding his right wrist, ” which he contends are cumulative and duplicative. The Court finds that the medical examinations reveal Plaintiff's condition at various times during his recovery and are relevant to determining whether his injury has prevented him from working. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3 is DENIED, with the exception that medical records generated in connection with Plaintiff's L&I claim be redacted of all references to the L&I claim.

         Motion in Limine No. 4 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny mention of the L&I claim regarding his right shoulder.” Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4 is GRANTED, with the exception that medical records generated in connection with Plaintiff's L&I claim be redacted of all references to the L&I claim.

         Motion in Limine No. 5 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny mention of the Defendant's affirmative defenses of negligence of third parties, intervening superseding acts of third parties, comparative negligence and assumption of the risk, improper use and maintenance and altered condition and failure to mitigate.” The Court finds that the motion is essentially a request for disposition of an affirmative defense. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 5 is DENIED.

         Motion in Limine No. 6 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny mention of Defendant's affirmative defense of negligence of third parties.” The Court finds that the motion is essentially a request for disposition of an affirmative defense. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 6 is DENIED.

         Motion in Limine No. 7 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny mention of Defendant's affirmative defense of assumption of the risk.” The Court finds that the motion is essentially a request for disposition of an affirmative defense. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 7 is DENIED.

         Motion in Limine No. 8 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny mention of factual matters that Defendant's 30(b)(6) witness, Mr. Forgas, failed to answer or didn't know the answer to.” Plaintiff does not identify with sufficient specificity those factual matters it seeks to exclude. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 8 is DENIED.

         Motion in Limine No. 9 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny mention of Defendant's affirmative defense of spoliation.” The Court finds that spoliation does not apply on the facts of this case. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 9 is GRANTED.

         Motion in Limine No. 10 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny mention of any other information regarding the IME conducted by Dr. Sun.” Plaintiff contends that Dr. Sun's opinions were not timely disclosed. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 10 is DENIED.

         Motion in Limine No. 11 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny mention of Defendant's affirmative defense of offset.” Defendant does not intend to assert this affirmative defense and does not oppose ...


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.