Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00136/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00136-4/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

Defendants’ Second Motion in Limine (Doc. 33, May 1, 2006) seeks to bar as evidence of

“subsequent remedial measures” --

Any testimony, expert or otherwise, and/or the introduction of evidence in any form

during the trial of this case, concerning the internal investigation into this incident

made by Greyhound, the termination of Charlie Williams from Greyhound’s

employment shortly after the accident which forms the basis of this lawsuit and the

reasons thereto, and/or evidence of Williams’ appeal/efforts to be reinstated to

employment with Greyhound

For good cause after due consideration of Defendants’ Motion , Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 53,

May 8, 2006), relevant pleadings and the Pretrial Order, and applicable law, and without deciding

that “the internal investigation ... made by Greyhound” constitutes a “subsequent remedial measure”,

 it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED to the extent that such evidence may not be

offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct as the jury will be instructed to decide this issue after

applying instructions on applicable standards to the relevant evidence. Whether such evidence is

admissible for any other purpose, including impeachment, is reserved for ruling in the context of

specific testimony if offered at trial.

It is further ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED with respect to “the termination

of Charlie Williams from Greyhound’s employment shortly after the accident which forms the basis

Case 2:05-cv-00136-DRB Document 61 Filed 05/10/06 Page 1 of 2
2

of this lawsuit and the reasons thereto, and/or evidence of Williams’ appeal/efforts to be reinstated

to employment with Greyhound.” Assuming such records qualify as a Rule 803(6) exception to the

hearsay rule, the court reserves ruling on whether they are relevant and otherwise admissibility to

consider the context if offered at trial.

 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 61 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2