Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 19.5 kB
Pages: 5
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 984 Words, 6,102 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/34649/133.pdf

Download Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona ( 19.5 kB)


Preview Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona
1 2 3 4 5 6

Matthew D. Kleifield 011564 Chad C. Baker 023083 Julie R. Barton 022814 KUNZ PLITT HYLAND DEMLONG & KLEIFIELD 3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1902
Email: mdk@kunzlegal.com Email: ccb@kunzlegal.com (602) 331-4600

Attorneys for Defendants 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Defendants ("Sunstone") move this Court for an Order in Limine excluding any statement, argument, testimony, or evidence of any insurance liens or medical liens asserted, or capable of being asserted, by Plaintiffs' health care insurers or medical care providers. Rules 401, 402, and 403 prevent the admissibility of such evidence. The following Memorandum of Points and Authorities supports this Motion. ... ... ... ...
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 133 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF ARIZONA MARVIN SAPIRO SAPIRO, his wife, and GLORIA No. CIV03-1555 PHX SRB DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 REGARDING INSURANCE OR MEDICAL LIENS (Oral Argument Requested)

Plaintiffs, v. SUNSTONE HOTELS INVESTORS, L.L.C., SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, L.P. Defendant.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REGARDING LIENS WHICH COULD BE, OR HAVE BEEN, ASSERTED IN THIS MATTER IS INADMISSIBLE. Any evidence of a lien is irrelevant to any issue present in this case, and therefore, inadmissible. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Only evidence that tends to make the existence of a fact of consequence more or less likely is relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence is excludable when the danger of prejudice or jury confusion or misguidance substantially outweighs the evidence's probative value. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The insurance providers and payers of Plaintiff's medical treatment are not germane to any issues at trial. While the amount of medical expenses accrued may help calculate a

potential damage award, Plaintiff's potential personal responsibility for these costs, through a lien or otherwise, does not effect whether the expenses were reasonable, or the treatment was necessary, or causally connected to Sunstone. Moreover, introduction of Plaintiffs' inability to pay a lien or the existence of an insurance lien would only excite the jury's sympathy. The United States Supreme Court long ago held that evidence of a party's poverty is irrelevant and should be excluded. See e.g., Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451, 459 (1880). Additionally, a jury may improperly conclude that Plaintiff would be liable for a lien regardless of his recovery against Sunstone. This improper conclusion may affect any damage award as well as influence the jury's decision on the issues of fault and causation. See TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 475-76 (1993) (holding that influences such as caprice, passion, bias, and prejudice are antithetical to the rule of law, such that a verdict based on such influences cannot stand); Boyle v. Lorimar Productions, Inc., 13 -2Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 133 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4

F.3d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir. 1994) (applying California law in holding that a damage award may be set aside if it is the result of passion or prejudice). Arizona law equally prohibits such improper influence on a jury's damage determination. Young Candy & Tobacco Co. v. Montoya, 91 Ariz. 363, 368, 372 P.2d 703, 708 (1962) (in assessing damages, the jury may not be

5 6 7 will be overturned if it resulted from passion or prejudice). 8 The jury should not be presented with evidence which will invoke improper motives such 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 By 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -3Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 133 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 3 of 5

influenced by improper motives or bias indicating passion or prejudice); Sheppard v. CrowBarker Paul No. 1 Ltd. P'ship., 192 Ariz. 539, 549, 968 P.2d 612 (App. 1998) (damage award

as bias, passion or prejudice. Evidence of any medical lien or Plaintiffs' inability to pay will have such an improper effect. Consequently, the potential for prejudice substantially outweighs any possible probative value such evidence may provide. Because evidence of an insurance or medical lien is irrelevant and very likely prejudicial, Sunstone respectfully requests this Court prohibit Plaintiff, Plaintiffs' Counsel and Plaintiffs' witnesses from introducing any testimony or evidence of a medical lien. DATED this 5th day of December, 2005. KUNZ PLITT HYLAND DEMLONG & KLEIFIELD A Professional Corporation s/Chad Baker Matthew D. Kleifield Chad C. Baker Julie R. Barton 3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1902 Attorneys for Defendants

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

COPY of the foregoing e-filed this 5th day of December, 2005, with: United States District Court Clerk of the Court 401 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85003 COPIES of the foregoing mailed this 5th day of December, 2005, to: Hon. Susan J. Bolton 401 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Chloe Andrews Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 33 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Attorney for Plaintiffs Marvin and Gloria Sapiro COPIES of the foregoing electronically delivered this 5th day of December, 2005, to: Ann M. Galvani Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 33 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Attorney for Plaintiffs David W. Shapiro, Esq. Boise, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P. 199 Harrison Street Oakland, CA 94612 Attorney for Plaintiffs Jorge Schmidt Boise, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P. Bank of America Tower, Suite 2800 100 S.E. 2 nd Street Miami, Florida 33131-2144 Attorney for Plaintiffs

-4Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 133 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Steven W. Davis, Esq. Boise, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P. Bank of America Tower, Suite 2800 100 S.E. 2 nd Street Miami, Florida 33131-2144 Attorney for Plaintiffs

s/C. Waight

-5Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 133 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 5 of 5