Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00536/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00536-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

GERTRUDE KETRE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 3:07-cv-536-MEF

)

AUBURN AQUATICS SWIM )

PROGRAM., et al., ) (WO- DO NOT PUBLISH)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the Motion in Limine (Doc. # 84) filed by Defendant

Auburn Aquatics Swim Program. This Court has careful considered the arguments advanced

in support of and in opposition to the motion made both in writing and orally at the pretrial.

It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in part and CONDITIONALLY

GRANTED in part. The motion is DENIED with respect to the following categories:

1. Any and all evidence of any allegation and/or contention not mentioned in

Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court has found that Plaintiff shall be allowed to

proceed on some but not all of those theories Defendant Kelly has claimed

were not encompassed by the Complaint or Amended Complaint. Consistent

with that prior ruling on the Renewed Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Pretrial

Order Contentions, the motion in limine is DENIED with respect to allegations

that Auburn Aquatics failed to warn about any condition related to the mat or

that Auburn Aquatics failed to inspect the facility.

Case 3:07-cv-00536-MEF-WC Document 98 Filed 03/26/09 Page 1 of 2
With respect to the following categories, the motion is CONDITIONALLY

GRANTED:

1. Any and all evidence of any allegation and/or contention not mentioned in

Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court has found that Plaintiff shall be allowed to

proceed on some but not all of those theories Defendant Kelly has claimed

were not encompassed by the Complaint or Amended Complaint. Consistent

with that prior ruling on the Renewed Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Pretrial

Order Contentions, the motion in limine is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED

with respect to allegations that Auburn Aquatics failed to conduct a pre-meet

safety inspection and that Auburn Aquatics failed to have safety officials at the

meet.

2. Any and all evidence relating to additional warnings made or precautions

taken by Auburn Aquatics after February 3, 2006 as they are subsequent

remedial measures, subject to any exception acknowledged by Federal Rule of

Evidence 407.

3. Any testimony of Plaintiff, her daughter, her son-in-law, or any other

witnessregarding hearsay statements made by unknown third partiesregarding

previous accidents caused by the blue mat at issue and/or previous occasions

where the mat is alleged to have posed a trip hazard.

DONE this the 26th day of March, 2009.

/s/ Mark E. Fuller

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 3:07-cv-00536-MEF-WC Document 98 Filed 03/26/09 Page 2 of 2