United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
S. LASNIK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs'
Amended Motions in Limine.” Dkt. # 109. Having reviewed
the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the
parties, the Court finds as follows:
parties agree that evidence of domestic violence is not
relevant to the liability determination in this matter.
Plaintiffs' first motion in limine is GRANTED as to the
first phase of trial.
Citizenship or Immigration Status
parties agree that evidence of plaintiffs' citizenship
and/or immigration status is not relevant to the liability
determination in this matter. Plaintiffs' second motion
in limine is GRANTED as to the first phase of trial.
Testimony Regarding Incident That is Not Based on
Assistant (“MA”) Gloria Rodriguez does not recall
her conversation or interaction with plaintiff Yesenia
Pacheco on September 30, 2011, but she may nevertheless
testify regarding her habits and practices when administering
injections. She has personal knowledge of her habits and
practices, and “[e]vidence of a person's habit . .
. may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the
person . . . acted in accordance with the habit . . . . The
court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is
corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.” Fed.
R. Ev. 406. Plaintiffs' third motion in limine is DENIED.
Sufficiency of Evidence of Habit
three years ago the Court determined that there is sufficient
evidence regarding MA Rodriguez' practice when
administering injections to admit the evidence in support of
defendant's claim of pattern or practice. Dkt. # 36 at
5-7. Plaintiffs' fourth motion in limine belatedly
challenges the Court's prior ruling, recharacterizing the
relevant conduct from “administering injections”
to “injecting a patient with a vaccine or medication in
lieu of that which the patient was scheduled to
receive” and arguing that the conduct was not regular
or frequent enough to be admitted as evidence of a habit.
Plaintiffs' fourth motion in limine is DENIED for both
procedural and substantive reasons. It is procedurally
improper as an untimely motion for reconsideration. On the
merits, plaintiffs' recharacterization of the relevant
conduct is unwarranted given the facts and issues in this
case. Plaintiffs' fourth motion in limine is DENIED.
Evidence of Illegal Conduct to Excuse Negligence
seek to exclude evidence or argument that would explain
defendant's conduct on September 30, 2011, if the
explanation involved a violation of state or federal law. For
example, plaintiffs argue that defendant should not be
permitted to show that Ms. Pacheco consented to a flu
vaccination because there is no signed consent form in her
medical records, and the creation and maintenance of such a
form is required by law. No. legal authority is provided for
this extraordinary motion, nor would such a ruling be
logical. Whatever happened at NeighborCare Health on
September 30, 2011, happened regardless of whether the
parties complied with all applicable legal requirements.
While the lack of a signed consent form in the medical
records may undercut defendant's contention that Ms.
Pacheco consented to the flu shot, it does not make consent
an impossibility. Ms. Pacheco could have orally consented, or
her written consent form could have been lost. Any regulatory
violation that may or may not have occurred did not alter the
actual events at issue. Plaintiffs' fifth motion in
limine is DENIED.
seek an order excluding evidence or argument suggesting that
one or more of the named plaintiffs was contributorily
negligent, based on a bare assertion that there is no
evidence to support the affirmative defense. Dkt. # 109 at
16. If that is the case, no evidence will be offered. If,
however, there is evidence of contributory negligence,