Filed: May 20, 2019
Latest Update: May 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER & REASONS LANCE M. AFRICK , District Judge . Defendant Hinode Kaiun Co., Ltd ("Hinode Kaiun") has filed two objections 1 to plaintiff Shane Macy's ("Macy") trial exhibits. After reviewing the exhibits at issue and considering the applicable Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court rules as follows: Hinode Kaiun's Initial Disclosures First, Hinode Kaiun objects to Macy's use of Section A of Hinode Kaiun's initial disclosures, which identifies witnesses likely to have discoverable infor
Summary: ORDER & REASONS LANCE M. AFRICK , District Judge . Defendant Hinode Kaiun Co., Ltd ("Hinode Kaiun") has filed two objections 1 to plaintiff Shane Macy's ("Macy") trial exhibits. After reviewing the exhibits at issue and considering the applicable Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court rules as follows: Hinode Kaiun's Initial Disclosures First, Hinode Kaiun objects to Macy's use of Section A of Hinode Kaiun's initial disclosures, which identifies witnesses likely to have discoverable inform..
More
ORDER & REASONS
LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge.
Defendant Hinode Kaiun Co., Ltd ("Hinode Kaiun") has filed two objections1 to plaintiff Shane Macy's ("Macy") trial exhibits. After reviewing the exhibits at issue and considering the applicable Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court rules as follows:
Hinode Kaiun's Initial Disclosures
First, Hinode Kaiun objects to Macy's use of Section A of Hinode Kaiun's initial disclosures, which identifies witnesses likely to have discoverable information that Hinode Kaiun might use in support of its case. Hinode Kaiun asserts that its initial disclosures are irrelevant and should therefore be excluded under Rules 401 and 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.2
In response, Macy argues that the initial disclosures are relevant based on inferences that can be deduced from the information provided therein. Specifically, Macy contends that—because the disclosures identify witnesses who may have information about the subject incident—any individuals who are not identified (namely, the deck cadet for the M/V NICHIRIN, the boat on which the accident occurred) presumably do not have relevant information.3
The Court agrees with Hinode Kaiun. The initial disclosures were just that— initial—and sent to Macy's counsel when this case was in its infancy. Contrary to Macy's contention, it is not reasonable to conclude that the only individuals who may have relevant, discoverable information are those individuals named in the disclosures. Hinode Kaiun's first objection is sustained under Rules 401 and 402.
Cooper/T. Smith New Hire Video
Hinode Kaiun also objects to a Cooper/T. Smith "new hire" video. Cooper/T. Smith was Macy's employer at the time of the accident. Hinode Kaiun argues that the video should be excluded either as unauthenticated under Rule 901 or irrelevant under Rule 401.4 Alternatively, Hinode Kaiun argues that, if the video is properly authenticated and relevant, it should be excluded under Rule 403 because its probative value is outweighed by the risk of misleading the factfinder. The Court will defer a ruling on this objection until trial, at which time Macy will have the opportunity to authenticate the video and the Court will be better positioned to assess its relevance. The Court will also make a Rule 403 determination at that time.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Hinode Kaiun's objections are SUSTAINED IN PART and DEFERRED IN PART, in accordance with this order.
