INGRAM v. WALGREEN CO., 2:10-cv-01813-ECR-RJJ. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120111591
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2012
Summary: Order EDWARD C. REED, District Judge. On December 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled "Omnibus Motions in Limine" (#47). The Motion (#47) requests (1) an order precluding closing argument that Plaintiff asked for a greater amount of money than was expected, (2) an order that the defense be precluded from referring to case as attorney-driven litigation or a medical buildup case, (3) an order that the defense be precluded from inquiring when counsel was obtained, (4) an order excluding
Summary: Order EDWARD C. REED, District Judge. On December 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled "Omnibus Motions in Limine" (#47). The Motion (#47) requests (1) an order precluding closing argument that Plaintiff asked for a greater amount of money than was expected, (2) an order that the defense be precluded from referring to case as attorney-driven litigation or a medical buildup case, (3) an order that the defense be precluded from inquiring when counsel was obtained, (4) an order excluding t..
More
Order
EDWARD C. REED, District Judge.
On December 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled "Omnibus Motions in Limine" (#47). The Motion (#47) requests (1) an order precluding closing argument that Plaintiff asked for a greater amount of money than was expected, (2) an order that the defense be precluded from referring to case as attorney-driven litigation or a medical buildup case, (3) an order that the defense be precluded from inquiring when counsel was obtained, (4) an order excluding testimony or documentary evidence regarding a prior or subsequent motor vehicle accident and subsequent settlement, (5) exclusion of criminal history, (6) and limiting closing arguments to evidence presented at trial.
Plaintiff attempts to anticipate issues that may or may not be raised at trial. It is unknown at this time whether such issues would have to be faced, or the circumstances in which the Court would face them. Therefore, the Motion (#47) is premature and must be DENIED in part as to items 1-3 and 6, with the possibility of renewal.
There is some indication that the issues contained in 4 & 5 pertain to the trial, and the Court will not rule on 4 & 5 at this time. The Court will issue its ruling on items 4 & 5 once a response is filed to the Motion (#47), and any further proceedings with respect to that Motion (#47) are had as determined by the Court.
Source: Leagle
