Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00136/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00136-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELLIS FRANKLIN, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 2:05-CV-00136-B

) [WO]

CHARLIE C. WILLIAMS, et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

After due consideration of Defendants’ First Consolidated Motion in Limine (Doc. 32, May

1, 2006), Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 52, May 8, 2006), relevant pleadings , and the PreTrial Order,

it is ORDERED as follows:

A. DISPUTED MATTERS

(2) Any testimony or argument by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s Counsel, and/or any witness

concerning allegations ofspoliation by the Defendants in regard to missing C-4 Cards

from the accident at issue

Defendants’ Motion in Limine is DENIED without prejudice for reconsideration at trial if

any C-4 cards are offered, admitted, and an evidentiary basis is proffered for the contention of

spoliation.

(3) Any testimony, opinions or argument expressed by Plaintiff or any other witness, or

argument by counsel related to the Plaintiff having arthritis in his leg or hip due to

this accident.

Whether the Plaintiff has accident-related arthritisin hisleg or hip is an evidentiary fact not

determinable or properly to be determined by the court at this time; the proffered deposition

testimony of Plaintiff’s doctor clearly relates to opinions for which he had a basis as of the date of his

deposition, and the court declines to speculate that any opinions offered at trial will not have a

Case 2:05-cv-00136-DRB Document 60 Filed 05/10/06 Page 1 of 3
2

foundation beyond that date. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion in Limine is DENIED without

prejudice for reconsideration in the context of the specific testimony and/or arguments. 

(5) Any testimony, opinions or argument expressed by the Plaintiff or any other witness,

or argument or comment by counsel related to claims for future lost wages as a result

of this accident

Defendants’ Motion in Limine is DENIED without prejudice for reconsideration in the

context of the specific testimony and/or arguments. 

B. UNDISPUTED MATTERS:

For good cause shown, and without opposition from Plaintiff, Defendants’ Motion in

Limine is GRANTED with respect to the following-numbered motions in limine:

(1) The Alabama Uniform Accident Report concerning the collision which forms the

basis of this lawsuit, as well as the conclusions reached therein as to fault, and/or any

testimony or opinion evidence by any police witness as to the conclusions reached in

the Report, and/or who they believe to be at fault in the accident

(4) Any testimony, opinions or argument expressed by the Plaintiff or any other witness,

or argument by counsel related to future costs relating to the need for future medical

care being due to this accident

(6) Any and all evidence or testimony regarding, or the mention of or argument

regarding, any matters related to the existence of liability insurance

(7) Any document from the pleadings, discovery, depositions or subpoenaed documents

that are not specifically identified by Plaintiff

(8) Any and all questions regarding a potential juror’s willingness or unwillingness to

render a specific decisionby counsel forthe Plaintiff’s during the voir dire stage of this

trial

(9) Any reference to and/or evidence of issues involving any and all financial information

and/or references to wealth of any of the Defendants

Case 2:05-cv-00136-DRB Document 60 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 3
3

(10) Any reference to prior and/or other judgments againstDefendants, prior and/or other

settlements by Defendants of claims, disputes, settlements, offers, or lawsuits, and/or

testimony of or from other lawsuits in voir dire, opening statements, during trial and

in closing arguments

(11) Additional Motions in Limine identified as (A) through (L).

DONE THIS 10 DAY OF MAY, 2006. TH

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00136-DRB Document 60 Filed 05/10/06 Page 3 of 3