United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division
EARL BRITT SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court on plaintiffs' omnibus motion
in limine. (DE # 137.) Defendant filed a response in partial
opposition to the motion. (DE # 202.) Subsequently, the
parties filed a joint stipulation regarding the motion. (DE #
219.) According to the stipulation, the parties agree that
ten topics, or portions thereof, remain disputed. On 30 May
2018, the court held a hearing on the disputed topics. The
following memorializes the court's rulings in open court
and sets forth the court's decision on those topics on
which it reserved ruling, by topic number.
Any reference or suggestion that a damage award may drive up
the price of pork products, put companies out of business,
cause jobs to be lost, put the Kinlaw Farm out of business or
cause a bankruptcy.”
Any reference or comparison to Taylor Finishing, Inc., or any
suggestion that lawsuits or damage awards could result in
family farmers declaring bankruptcy; any suggestion that this
lawsuit is part of an effort by environmentalists, liberals
and left-wingers to hurt North Carolina family farmers and
put them out of business.”
motion as to these topics is ALLOWED because the business
consequences resulting from this lawsuit or any damage award
that effect non-parties are not relevant to this action.
References to or evidence of arrests, charges, past criminal
acts, or convictions with regard to any Plaintiff or witness
called by Plaintiff; any reference or evidence purporting to
concern any criminal history or record of any Plaintiff, any
family or household member or family relative, or any
neighbor or fact witness.”
motion is ALLOWED as to this topic, except for evidence of a
criminal conviction that is admissible under the Federal
Rules of Evidence.
References to or argument on criminal histories of community
members associated with the Plaintiffs, to accidents,
criminal incidents, formal or informal crime statistics in
neighborhood or reference to neighborhood as being
crime-ridden, a ‘ghetto, '” a
‘low-income neighborhood' or similar statements or
motion is ALOWED as to this topic. However, this ruling is
not intended to prevent any evidence with regard to the use
or misuse of the highway adjacent to plaintiffs' property
and the subject farm.
Reference or evidence of ‘drug use in the area' or
other crimes in the area.” As for reference or evidence
of drug use in the area, the motion is ALLOWED. As for
reference or evidence related to other crimes in the area,
the motion is DENIED as to property-related crimes.
Evidence or reference to real estate appraisals, tax values
or other property values of the homes of the Plaintiffs
should be excluded.”
motion as to this topic is ALLOWED.
Defendant should be barred from seeking to offer evidence,
for example, that a given trial group Plaintiff's yard
had a garbage bag in it, or dead vegetation, or the
motion as to this topic is DENIED to the extent the evidence
is identifiable as or pertaining to the ...