Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky

June 6, 2018

JUSTINE MOORE, Plaintiff,
v.
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Colin H. Lindsay Magistrate Judge.

         This case is set for trial by jury before the United States Magistrate Judge on June 11, 2018. The final pretrial conference was held on June 4, 2018. Plaintiff, Justine Moore (“Moore”) has filed her Exhibit List (DN 30) and Witness List (DN 31) to which Defendant, Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (“Safeco”), filed objections.[1] (Objections to Exhibit List, DN 44; Objections to Witness List, DN 39.) Safeco also filed its Exhibit List (DN 32) and Witness List (DN 33) to which Moore filed objections. (Objections to Exhibit List, DN 40; Objections to Witness List, DN 35.) All are ripe for review, and the instant memorandum opinion and order will address both Moore's and Safeco's motions.

         Background

         A brief summary of the factual allegations underlying this case will help to put the parties' motions in context. This is an underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage and bad faith case. Moore was involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 23, 2004 with non-party, Isaak Anderson. (DN 1-1, at PageID # 6; DN 5, at PageID# 20.) Moore alleges that she was insured under a UIM policy issued by Safeco at the time of the accident. Moore settled with Anderson and requested additional monies from Safeco pursuant to her underinsured motorist coverage. Moore has now sued Safeco for breach of contract, violation of the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, and bad faith.

         Discussion

         I. Moore's Objections to Safeco's Exhibit List (DN 40)

         A. Dr. Michael M. Best's Expert Report

         Safeco lists the expert report of Dr. Michael M. Best (“Dr. Best”) as an exhibit it intends to introduce at trial. (DN 32, at PageID # 90.) Moore objects on grounds that introducing Dr. Best's Report is cumulative and prejudicial to Moore as it in essence allows the jury to hear Dr. Best's testimony twice and take it to the jury room with them. (DN 40, at PageID # 131.)

         Dr. Best is expected to testify at trial via videotaped trial deposition testimony. (DN 33, at PageID # 92.) Therefore, Dr. Best's opinion will be introduced to the jury via his testimony, not by his expert report. Accordingly, Moore's objection is hereby SUSTAINED. No. party shall be permitted to introduce the expert report of Dr. Best at trial.

         B. Exhibits from Dr. Best's Deposition

         Safeco lists the videotaped trial deposition with exhibits of Dr. Best as an exhibit it intends to introduce at trial. (DN 32, at PageID # 90.) Moore objects because the deposition of Dr. Best had not yet occurred at the time she filed her objections.

         This Court's Pretrial Order requires a party to file a written objection to any excerpt of a deposition an opposing party plans to use at trial so objections can be dealt with in advance. (DN 26, at PageID # 76.) Therefore, Moore's objection to preserve all objections is SUSTAINED. Pursuant to the Court's June 5, 2018 Pretrial Conference Order, Moore is directed to file any objections to any exhibits to Dr. Best's deposition on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 7, 2018.

         C. Deposition Transcripts of Justine Moore, Isaak Anderson, Mackenzie Hornback, and Vellancis Robinson

         Safeco lists “[a]ll transcripts and/or videos of all fact depositions taken in this case . . .” as exhibits it intends to introduce at trial. (DN 32, at Page ID # 90.) Moore objects on grounds that introducing the transcripts of witnesses who are going to testify live at trial is cumulative and would allow the witnesses to be in the jury room during deliberations. (DN 40, at Page ID # 132.)

         Justine Moore, Isaak Anderson, Mackenzie Hornback, and Vellancis Robinson are all expected to testify live at trial. (DN 31, at Page ID # 86-87; DN 33, at Page ID # 92.) Therefore, their deposition testimony will only be admissible at trial to the extent it is introduced by either party for impeachment purposes. Moore's objection is hereby SUSTAINED. No. party shall be permitted to introduce the entire deposition transcript of Justine Moore, Isaak Anderson, Mackenzie Hornback, or Vellancis Robinson at trial. The Court reserves a ruling as to whether portions of the deposition transcripts of the above-named individuals may be admissible for some other purpose under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

         D. All Documents ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.