United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the Court on a number of Motions in Limine
[DE 168-180, 183, 184], each filed as a separate motion by
Defendants on November 6, 2019. Plaintiff has not responded
and the time to do so has passed. The Court notes that
several other documents were titled Motions in Limine but are
more properly understood to be motions to exclude expert
testimony, and will be considered separately.
motion in limine will be granted Aonly when evidence is
clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.”
Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Techs., Inc., 831
F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also Dartey v.
Ford Motor Co., 104 F.Supp.2d 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ind.
2000). Most evidentiary rulings will be resolved at trial in
context, and this Aruling is subject to change when the case
unfolds.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38,
41-42 (1984). The Court considers each request in turn.
Lay Opinions as to Medical Causation [DE 168]
request that the Court exclude lay witnesses from testifying
as to medical diagnoses, causes and effects of injuries, and
other matters of medical science excluded as a lay person
lacks the requisite training and knowledge to provide this
type of testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 701. Plaintiff
has made no objection to this request, and it is therefore
Lay Testimony Regarding Injuries or Conditions
Unsupported by Expert Testimony [DE 169]
request that the Court exclude testimony of injuries or
physical conditions for which an admissible expert has not
expressed an opinion regarding the cause of that injury or
condition. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 701.
Plaintiff has not objected. Accordingly, no lay witness may
testify at trial regarding injuries or symptoms of injuries
that are not connected to the accident by expert testimony.
Statements Regarding Punishing Defendants [DE 170]
move for Plaintiff to be excluded from arguing that a jury
verdict would or should punish or send a message to
Defendants or society at large, since no punitive damages are
being sought. Since a request for damages to send a message
beyond making Plaintiff whole is inappropriate in a case for
only compensatory damages, the request is granted. See
Betts v. City of Chicago, 784 F.Supp.2d 1020, 1033 (N.D.
Ill. 2011) (“Given that compensatory damages are
limited to actual losses, this court agrees that [the
plaintiff]'s argument that the jury should ‘send a
message' is a punitive damages argument.”).
Reference to Liability Insurance [DE 171]
request that the Court exclude any reference to liability
insurance. See Fed. R. Evid. 411. The request is
granted and any mention of whether Defendants were insured is
Reference to Prior Settlement Negotiations [DE 172]
to Federal Rule of Evidence 408, any reference to settlement
negotiations or statements made about the case ...