COCHRAN v. MASSEY, 12-cv-765-DRH. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20140425749
Visitors: 22
Filed: Apr. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. Pending before the Court is defendant's motion in limine to exclude improper evidence and argument relating to: (1) established business relationship and (2) prior consent or permission (Doc. 36). Defendant, inter alia, argues that during discovery plaintiff gave evasive, incomplete and false answers to written interrogatories and requests for production on these issues. The Court DENIES the motion. On March 31, 2014, the Court denied as untim
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. Pending before the Court is defendant's motion in limine to exclude improper evidence and argument relating to: (1) established business relationship and (2) prior consent or permission (Doc. 36). Defendant, inter alia, argues that during discovery plaintiff gave evasive, incomplete and false answers to written interrogatories and requests for production on these issues. The Court DENIES the motion. On March 31, 2014, the Court denied as untime..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.
Pending before the Court is defendant's motion in limine to exclude improper evidence and argument relating to: (1) established business relationship and (2) prior consent or permission (Doc. 36). Defendant, inter alia, argues that during discovery plaintiff gave evasive, incomplete and false answers to written interrogatories and requests for production on these issues. The Court DENIES the motion. On March 31, 2014, the Court denied as untimely defendant's motion request to reopen discovery (Doc. 47). In the motion to reopen discovery, defendant raised similar arguments regarding discovery violations as he does in this motion in limine. The evidence and argument that defendant seeks to omit are the precise issues that are in dispute in this case which the jury must decide based on the evidence that is produces and the credibility of the witnesses. Clearly, these issues that defendant seek to exclude are relevant, germane and proper. Thus, the Court DENIES defendant's motion in limine to exclude improper evidence and argument relating to: (1) established business relationship and (2) prior consent or permission (Doc. 36).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
