The State of Minnesota respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion to compel the production of gambling documents. Defendants' motion seeks documents which do not even remotely relate to this action. The same result should apply to the present motion.
Defendants fail to cite any case law to support their motion.
The reason is clear. Minn. R. Civ. For other accident evidence to be admissible, the proponent of the evidence must show that the facts and circumstances of the other incident are substantially similar to the case at bar . . . . The general rule of limiting the admission of other accident evidence to those events which were substantially similar ensures that the focus of the trial stays on the specific type of accident forming the basis of the case. In the present case, it is preposterous to argue that cigarettes and gambling are substantially similar.