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.

Easton v. Asplundh Tree Experts Co.

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

March 13, 2018

BRITTANY EASTON, Plaintiff,
v.
ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERTS, CO., Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LFMINE

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motions In Limine. Dkt. #54. Plaintiff does not oppose several of Defendant's motions, but opposes others. Dkts. #54 and #60. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court now GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motions In Limine.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Parties may file motions in limine before or during trial "to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984). To resolve such motions, the Court is guided by Fed.R.Evid. 401 and 403. Specifically, the Court considers whether evidence "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, " and whether "the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed.R.Evid. 401. But the Court may exclude relevant evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed.R.Evid. 403.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Uncontested Motions In Limine 10-17

         Defendant has proposed a number of Motions In Limine which Plaintiff does not oppose. Dkts. #54 at 9-16 and #60 at 8-9. Accordingly, the following Motions In Limine will be GRANTED, which will result in excluding:

10. Evidence or Argument Regarding Special Damages, Including Medical Damage and Wage Loss;
11. Argument, Testimony and Questions of Witnesses Regarding Current Issues;
12. Argument, Reference or Suggestion of (a) Teaching a Lesson, (b) Placing Themselves in the Positions of Plaintiffs, (c) Sending a Message, (d) the Golden Rule, or (e) Similar Situations;
13. Plaintiffs Fact Witness Jaqui Bove;
14. Plaintiffs Rebuttal Expert Witness Maureen Clark;
15. Expert Witness Randal Beaton, Ph.D. from Testifying Beyond the Scope of His Disclosure ...

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.