Filed: Feb. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2020
Summary: STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AT TRIAL RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . I. STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by Plaintiff and Defendants, that the following are EXCLUDED in evidence, statements, arguments, testimony, documents, references or inferences during any phase of the trial in this matter, including jury selection, opening statements, closing arguments, witness testimony, or at any other time: A. Statements made during se
Summary: STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AT TRIAL RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . I. STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by Plaintiff and Defendants, that the following are EXCLUDED in evidence, statements, arguments, testimony, documents, references or inferences during any phase of the trial in this matter, including jury selection, opening statements, closing arguments, witness testimony, or at any other time: A. Statements made during set..
More
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.
I. STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by Plaintiff and Defendants, that the following are EXCLUDED in evidence, statements, arguments, testimony, documents, references or inferences during any phase of the trial in this matter, including jury selection, opening statements, closing arguments, witness testimony, or at any other time:
A. Statements made during settlement negotiations;
B. References to discovery disputes;
C. References to relative financial status of the parties;
D. Evidence or argument about alleged loss of consortium experienced by Ms. Foster's grandchildren;
E. Statements identical or similar to the following:
1. Product liability law is unfair to manufacturers;
2. Damage awards could put manufacturer out of business or cause jobs to be lost;
3. Damage awards may increase cost of vehicles; and
4. Anyone can file lawsuit against manufacturer that has no merit if they just pay court costs
F. Opinion testimony from police officers, firemen, EMTs and healthcare providers on whether Honda was negligent or whether vehicle was defective;
G. Opinion testimony from police officers, firemen, EMTs and healthcare providers on other accidents or injuries with dissimilar vehicles or circumstances;
H. Any suggestion by Defendants' lawyers, witnesses, experts or otherwise, that they are so confident in the alleged safety of the Honda that they drove their vehicles, or their relatives or employees or anyone associated with the court or case have driven their vehicles. This does not apply to questions that may be asked of potential jurors during jury selection.
I. Defendants cannot introduce evidence re: Meike Foster being under the influence of drugs, or intoxicated or over the legal limit to drive;
J. Irrelevant, prejudicial evidence and arguments, such as:
1. Honda's "good acts";
The parties respectfully request the Court sign the Proposed Order below endorsing this stipulation.
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
By s/Thomas J. Breen By s/David J. Russell
Thomas J. Breen, WSBA #34574 David J. Russell, WSBA #17289
Peter O'Neil, WSBA #28198 Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
Sergio Garcidueñas-Sease, WSBA #46958 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
810 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101
Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 623-1900
Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384
Fax: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: drussell@kellerrohrback.com
E-mail: breen@sgb-law.com; Attorneys for Defendants
peter@peteroneil.org;
sergio@sgb-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
II. ORDER
THIS MATTER having come before the undersigned judge pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, and the Court being fully advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The following are EXCLUDED in evidence, statements, arguments, testimony, documents, references or inferences during any phase of the trial, including jury selection, opening statements, closing arguments, witness testimony, or at any other time:
A. Statements made during settlement negotiations;
B. References to discovery disputes;
C. References to financial status of the parties;
D. Evidence or argument about alleged loss of consortium experienced by Ms. Foster's grandchildren;
E. Any statement identical or similar to the following:
1. Product liability law is unfair to manufacturers;
2. Damage awards could put manufacturer out of business or cause jobs to be lost;
3. Damage awards may increase cost of vehicles; and
4. Anyone can file lawsuit against manufacturer that has no merit if they just pay court costs
F. Opinion testimony from police officers, firemen, EMTs and healthcare providers on whether Honda was negligent or whether vehicle was defective;
G. Opinion testimony from police officers, firemen, EMTs and healthcare providers on other accidents or injuries with dissimilar vehicles or circumstances;
H. Any suggestion by Defendants' lawyers, witnesses, experts or otherwise, that they are so confident in the alleged safety of the Honda that they drove their vehicles, or their relatives or employees or anyone associated with the court or case have driven their vehicles. This does not apply to questions that may be asked of potential jurors during jury selection.
I. Defendants cannot introduce evidence re: Meike Foster being under the influence of drugs, or intoxicated or over the legal limit to drive;
J. Irrelevant, prejudicial evidence and arguments, such as:
1. Honda's "good acts";
2. Honda is a "family company"
