HARPER v. TVETER, 2:13-CV-889 TS. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20150812d72
Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 11, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 11, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GRUESOME AND CUMULATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Gruesome and Cumulative Photographs. In his Motion, Defendant seeks the exclusion of certain photographs of Plaintiff's injuries and resulting scarring under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Rule 403 states that "[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GRUESOME AND CUMULATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Gruesome and Cumulative Photographs. In his Motion, Defendant seeks the exclusion of certain photographs of Plaintiff's injuries and resulting scarring under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Rule 403 states that "[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value ..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GRUESOME AND CUMULATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
TED STEWART, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Gruesome and Cumulative Photographs. In his Motion, Defendant seeks the exclusion of certain photographs of Plaintiff's injuries and resulting scarring under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
Rule 403 states that "[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." "Rule 403 does not protect a party from all prejudice, only unfair prejudice."1
Having reviewed the photographs at issue, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to show that the probative value of these photographs is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. While some of the photos are graphic, they are necessary to demonstrate the nature and extent of Plaintiff's injuries. Further, Plaintiff has agreed to remove some of the duplicate photographs, lessening the potential for undue delay and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Gruesome and Cumulative Photographs (Docket No. 51) is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. Deters v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., 202 F.3d 1262, 1274 (10th Cir. 2000).
Source: Leagle
