United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
This case is scheduled for trial on the Court's October 21, 2014, calendar stack. This is a simple personal injury case involving a single claim for negligence. Yet, incredibly, the parties have filed twenty-six (26) motions in limine. Some of the issues raised in these motions are frivolous and the fact that they are even raised shows both parties' deteriorating professionalism. The Court therefore directs counsel to meet and confer on the pending motions in limine before the calendar call scheduled for October 14, 2014. At the calendar call, the Court expects a report from counsel on their progress to informally resolve the issues raised in these motions.
This Order addresses Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s Motion for Dismissal Sanctions Under Rule 41(b) and/or Rule 37(b) ("Motion"). (Dkt. no. 111.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's Motion is denied in part and granted in part.
The relevant facts are recited in the Court's previous Orders. Because the rulings in two of these Orders affect the Court's analysis, the Court summarizes them here. In these Orders, which were entered on December 12, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff's objection to a decision by the Magistrate Judge ("Affirming Order") (dkt. no. 78) and denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment ("SJ Order") (dkt. no. 79).
In the Affirming Order, the Court addressed Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate Judge's decision to grant Defendant's motion to exclude evidence disclosed in two expert witness reports. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff unreasonably waited until the expert disclosure deadline to disclose two expert witnesses, Dr. Armando Miciano and Dr. Hugh Selznick, and their reports. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff's "discovery disclosures and non-disclosures are at best, materially misleading, and at worst, patently false." (Dkt. no. 75 at 11.) Magistrate Judge Leen granted Defendant's motion to exclude and further stated, "Plaintiff shall not be permitted to use as evidence at trial, at any hearing, or any motion, the testimony or opinions of Drs. Selznick and Miciano." ( Id. at 12.) Plaintiff objected but the Court affirmed Magistrate Judge Leen's rulings. (Dkt. no. 78.)
In the SJ Order, the Court addressed Plaintiff's request for summary judgment on her negligence claim. Plaintiff offered only the testimonies of Drs. Selznick and Miciano to support the causation element of her negligence claim. (Dkt. no. 66 at 21.) The Court rejected this argument, finding that Judge Leen had excluded Plaintiff's only proffered evidence. (Dkt. no. 79 at 4-5.)
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has violated the Court's Orders to exclude certain expert testimonies by stating her intention to call these expert witnesses at trial and by citing to their opinions in two of her motions in limine (dkt. nos. 90 & 94). Plaintiff counters that the Court's prior rulings only preclude Drs. Selznick and Miciano from testifying about future medical damages and permanent impairment. Plaintiff's reading of the Court's prior Orders is not supported by the records.
The Magistrate Judge issued the following orders at the end of her opinion:
1. Wal-Mart's Motion to Exclude All Evidence Regarding Plaintiff Kayleen Shakepear's Future Surgery, Permanent Medical Impairment, and Future Medical Expenses Pursuant to FRCP 37(c)(1) and FRCP 37(b)(2) [Emergency Motion] (Dkt. # 56) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff shall not be permitted to use as evidence at trial, at any hearing, or any motion, the testimony or opinions of Drs. Selznick and Miciano.
(Dkt. no. 75 at 11-12.) Plaintiff contends that the cited paragraphs implicitly show the Magistrate Judge's determination that Plaintiff is precluded from having the two expert witnesses offer their opinions with respect to Plaintiff's medical needs, medical costs, and any permanent impairment. (Dkt. no. 112 at 17.) Plaintiff appears to suggest that the title of Defendant's motion limits Defendant's relief. This argument falls short for two reasons. First, Defendant's motion asks the Court to exclude "any and all evidence untimely disclosed." (Dkt. no. 56 at 30.) The Magistrate Judge granted Defendant's request. (Dkt. no. 75 at 11.) Moreover, to clarify the Order, the Magistrate Judge explicitly stated the scope of her ruling: "Plaintiff shall not be permitted to use as evidence at trial, at any hearing, or any motion, the testimony or opinions of Drs. ...