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.

Covey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

December 18, 2017

LEA ANN COVEY, Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant.

          ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE, AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

          ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         Pending are Defendant's Motions in Limine (Doc. #80), and Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (Doc. #79). Parties are reminded these rulings are interlocutory. Thus, the denial of a request to bar evidence at this juncture preserves nothing for review, and the parties may re-assert their objections at trial if they deem it appropriate to do so. Evidence barred by this Order shall not be discussed in the jury's presence (including during opening statements) without leave of the Court. The parties are free to suggest (out of the jury's presence) that something has occurred during the trial that justifies a change in the Court's interlocutory ruling.

         Defendant's Motions in Limine

         A. Defendant's Financial Condition, History, Size, and Corporate Structure

         Defendant seeks to exclude evidence or testimony regarding its “financial condition, history, size or corporate structure.” Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

         B. Defendant's Insurance Policy

         Defendant seeks to exclude evidence of its insurance liability policy because this evidence is inadmissible under Missouri law. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

         C. Evidence and Witnesses Not Disclosed During Discovery

         Defendant seeks to exclude evidence and witnesses not disclosed during discovery. Plaintiff does not anticipate presenting evidence not disclosed in discovery except to the extent she may present summaries of information contained in documents, subparts of items produced in discovery, and any evidence and witnesses that be may presented in rebuttal. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), evidence and witnesses not disclosed during discovery will be excluded at trial. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

         D. Expert Witnesses Not Identified

         Defendant seeks to exclude testimony from any expert witness who was not properly identified. More specifically, Defendant seeks to exclude any testimony from Plaintiff's treating physicians establishing Plaintiff is entitled to relief for future medical care or treatment, or future costs. Defendant argues this is appropriate because Plaintiff did not designate a retained expert to opine on these subjects. While Plaintiff does not intend to call a retained expert at trial, Plaintiff opposes the motion to the extent Defendant seeks to preclude treating physicians from testifying about Plaintiff's physical condition before and after the incident.

         Neither party may introduce testimony from an expert witness not properly identified during discovery. However, Plaintiff's treating physicians may testify about Plaintiff's care, and her medical condition prior to and after the incident. Accordingly, the motion is granted in part, and denied in part.

         E. Medical and Billing Records

         Defendant seeks to exclude any medical or billing records not properly disclosed during discovery. Plaintiff believes all medical and billing records were produced. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), evidence not disclosed during discovery will be excluded at trial. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

         F. Defendant's Policies, Procedures, and Training

         Defendant seeks to exclude evidence of its policies, procedures, and training that are not relevant to this matter. Plaintiff does not intend to offer irrelevant policies and procedures, but opposes the motion to the extent she has identified what she characterizes as relevant policies and procedures. Plaintiff identifies Defendant's “Slip, Trip, and Fall Guidelines, ” “Department of Safety Solutions, ” and “Safety Toolkit” as relevant policies and procedures.

         The Court finds the policies and procedures identified above are relevant in this matter. Accordingly, the motion is granted in part, and denied in part. Plaintiff may present evidence of the three policies and procedures ...


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.