Rg

information for the jury without running any undue Rule 403 risk,

Maytag’s objection to P. &x. 27 is overruled, for the
exhibit is clearly relevant. If Maytag is concerned as to any
potential for unfair prejudice, its counsel would seem well
advised to provide its agreement to the uncontested fact proposal
to which Dewicks’ July 15 letter refers, thus avoiding
introduction of the exhibits themselves,

Finally, Maytag’s objection to the large group of
photographs comprising P. Exs. 31 through 51 is granted in part
and denied in part. There appears to be no good reason why such
a plethora of pictures is needed to demonstrate the nature and
extent of Michael Jr.’s injuries and his recuperation. Any such
proposed overexposure would appear to pose Rule 403 concerns.
Accordingly bewicks’ counsel must be more selective, substituting
a smaller number of photographs that would be adequately

demonstrative of the facts sought to be proved.

CMe. Mobo.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 21, 2004


‘Minute der Form | a

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton L. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 1548 DATE 7/21/2004
CASE Michael Dewick, Sr. vs. Maytag Corp., et al
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) stule briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

()) i] Filed motion of [ use listing in “Mation” box above.]

Q@ ao Brief in support of motion due

(3) oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue_____.

(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for __—at

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__ set for_ at.

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on set for at_
(7) oO Trial[sct for/re-set for]on at

(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to ____at

Ss
a

‘This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

ao [Other docket entry) Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Maytag’s objection to P. Ex. 5 is
overruled. Maytag’s objection to the P. Ex. 6 photograph is also overruled. As to P. Exs. 71 through 73
ruling is deferred until trial. Maytag’s objection to P. Exs. 9 and 10 is denied in liminc. Maytag’s
objection to P. Ex 27 is overruled, for the exhibit is clearly relevant. Maytag’s objection to the large
group of photographs comprising P. Exs. 31 through 51 is granted in part and denied in part.

(1) @ [For further detail sce order attached to the original minute order.]

Document
Number

No notices required, advised in open court

No notices required, number of notices i

2274

slave docksted

a | Notices mailed by judge's staff.

OL

Notified counsel by telephone

Docketing to mail notices,

LYACS

Muil AQ 450 form. ee: $10 sn He

dbbketing deputy initials

Copy to judge/mugisteate judge

03:6 Hd 12 Wr 4002 “wm

ate tiled noiog
courtroom,

SN depury’s cores on
initials pone :

Date/time received in 7

central Clerk's Oittice ning deputy nti



vw

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL A. DEWICK, SR., et al.,

)
etc.,
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
Vv. ) No. 03 ¢ 1548
)
MAYTAG CORPORATION, et al., ) ; .
yawabi els
Defendants. )

JUL 2 27004

MEMORANDUM _ OPINION AND ORDER

In accordance with this Court’s June 21, 2004 entry of its =a
final pretrial order and an accompanying minute order esunee!
for the litigants have identified certain of their respective
objected-to exhibits as calling for in limine determination,
rather than having the rulings on those objections deferred until
trial. In turn counsel for plaintiffs (“Dewicks,” as in all
prior opinions), have submitted a letter in response to the
ruling request by defendant Maytag Corporation (“Maytag”). This
memorandum order addresses those plaintiffs’ exhibits (“P.

Bx, --"”), with a corresponding memorandum order to be issued when
the parties have had their say as to the objected-to Maytag
exhibits.

Maytag’s objection to P. Ex. 5 is overruled. Because that
exhibit is not being admitted for its truth, but rather to
demonstrate notice to Maytag of the Drozd injury, it is not
vulnerable to a hearsay objection. Nor does it pose the

potential for unfair prejudice, so as to bring Fed. R, Evid.

Nb



s

(“Rule”) 403 into play (objecting counsel too frequently lose
sight of the fact that all relevant evidence is by definition
prejudicial to the party against whom it is offered, so that Rule
403 speaks only of “the danger of unfair prejudice”).

Maytag’s objection to the P. Ex. 6 photograph is also
overruled (it is assumed here that those photographs were sent to
Maytag by Drozd’s counsel, either together with P. Ex. 5 or
otherwise). But to avoid any unnecessary cumulativeness that
might run afoul of Rule 403, what will go to the jury will be
limited to the group photograph and one close-up photograph.

As for P. Exs. 71 through 73, in limine treatment of Lhose
documents appears inappropriate in light of the possible uses
that have been identified in Dewicks’ July 15, 2004 letter.
Accordingly ruling is deferred until trial, with the present
indication being that the exhibits will likely be admissible for
one or more of those indicated purposes.

Maytag’s objection to P. Exs. 9 and 10 is denied in limine,
with the understanding that those exhibits will likely be
available at trial for the purposes identified in Dewick’s
July 15 letter. In this instance, however, it would seem most
sensible to limit the jury’s access to a single document along
the lines of B. Ex. 10: a summary qualifying under Rule 1006
Counsel for the parties should seek to reach agreement on the

content of that exhibit, so as to provide the necessary