ORDER & REASONS

LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge.

Defendants Illinois Central Railroad ("IC") and BRV Equipment Inc. ("BRV") object to three trial exhibits propounded by plaintiff Bryan Horne ("Horne").

First, IC and BRV object to the introduction of an FRA Track and Rail Infrastructure Integrity Compliance Manual on the ground that the document is irrelevant. Horne "agrees with [IC and BRV], and has no opposition to" the removal of the manual from his exhibit list.1 Accordingly, IC and BRV's objection to the manual is dismissed as moot.

Second, IC and BRV object to the introduction of medical illustrations of the surgeries undergone by Horne on May 2, 2017. IC and BRV argue that Dr. Kyle Gordon has testified regarding the procedure performed by him but that he did not lay a foundation for the illustrations of such procedures to be admitted into evidence. Notably, IC and BRV do not cite any legal authority or offer any argument whatsoever in support of their objection,2 nor do they provide any excerpts from Dr. Gordon's deposition from which the Court might discern whether a lack of foundation for the illustrations exists.

In any event, IC and BRV's objections are overruled. At his deposition, Dr. Gordon testified that the medical illustrations in question fairly and accurately depict the procedure that he performed on Horne.3 As a medical expert with knowledge of the procedure he conducted on Horne, Dr. Gordon's testimony authenticates the illustrations. Further, the illustrations are relevant, because as Dr. Horne testified, they will assist in explaining the procedure performed on Horne to the jury.

Thus, the illustrations may, at a minimum, be used as demonstrative evidence.4 The Court will defer until trial a ruling as to whether the illustrations may be admitted as substantive evidence that is sent to the jury as well as a ruling as to whether the illustrations should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

Third, IC and BRV object to the introduction of excerpts from IC's own fall protection manual. IC and BRV contend that these documents are "nothing more than a general listing of items subject to the [IC] [o]perating [r]ules and a recapitulation of various sections of the Code of Federal Regulations including sections which are wholly irrelevant such as `safety netting,' `scaffolding,' and `working over or adjacent to water.'"5 The Court notes that much of the manual's excerpts does appear to be irrelevant to the instant case. However, the Court will defer a formal ruling on IC and BRV's objections until trial, at which time the Court will be in a better position to assess the merits of IC and BRV's position.6

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that IC and BRV's objections are DISMISSED AS MOOT IN PART, OVERRULED IN PART, and DEFERRED UNTIL TRIAL IN PART as set forth herein.