The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JANE DOE CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE NO. 22-00338-BAJ-SDJ
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM,
ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendant Board of Supervisors of the University of
Louisiana System’s Motion In Limine And Daubert Motion To Exclude Or
Limit Testimony Of Past And Future Medical Expenses (Doc. 160, the
“Motion”). The Motion is opposed. (Doc. 174). For the reasons below, Defendant’s
Motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The alleged facts of this case have been provided by the Court at length in its
previous rulings. (Doc. 52). Defendant Board of Supervisors of the University of
Louisiana System (“ULS”) have brought this Motion to preclude testimony on
Plaintiffs past and future medical expenses.
Il. LEGAL STANDARDS
“It is well settled that motions in limine are disfavored.” Auenson v. Lewis,
1996 WL 457258, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 1996) (citing Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T
Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1898, 1400 (N.D. II]. 1993)). “Motions in limine are
frequently made in the abstract and in anticipation of some hypothetical
circumstance that may not develop at trial.” Collins v. Wayne Corp., 621 F.2d 777,
784 (5th Cir. 1980) (superseded on other grounds). “An order in limine excludes only
clearly inadmissible evidence; therefore, evidence should not be excluded before trial
unless it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Rivera v. Robinson, 464 F.
Supp. 3d 847, 853 (H.D. La. 2020) (quoting Auenson, 1996 WL 457258, at *1)
(emphasis added). Instead, courts should reserve evidentiary rulings until trial so
that questions as to the evidence “may be resolved in the proper context.” Auenson,
1996 WL 457258, at *1.
However, “[dJenial of a motion in limine does not mean all evidence
contemplated by the motion will be automatically admitted. Rather, denial means
that the court cannot determine in advance whether the evidence should be
excluded.” Id.
Federal Rule of Evidence 401 instructs that evidence is relevant if “it has any
tendency to make a fact more or less probably than it would be without the evidence”
and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action,” while Federal Rule of
Evidence 402 states that, as a general matter, relevant evidence is admissible.
Meanwhile Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides courts with the ability to “exclude
relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one
or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
IiI. DISCUSSION
ULS asks the Court to bar any testimony on the topic of Plaintiffs past and
future medical expenses. The Court declines to do so.
ULS argues that Plaintiffs psychological expert, Julie Medlin, did not offer
testimony on the cost of her recommended future psychiatric care, and that no other
witness has been designated to testify to past or future medical costs. (Doc. 160-1 at
2). According to ULS, testimony relating to past medical expenses should be forbidden
because there is no evidence presently in the record of Plaintiffs medical costs. Ud.
at 5). Plaintiff responds that she intends to testify to those costs herself at trial. (Doc.
174 at 1). ULS’s Motion is denied on these grounds. ULS has provided no authority
or argument in support of its position that Plaintiff cannot testify to her past medical
damages, which are, as ULS acknowledges, “easily measured” and may be established
with “reasonable mathematical certainty,” (Doc. 160-1 at 5 (quoting Rodrigue v. Nat'l
Ins. Co., No. CV 20-2267, 2021 WL 3284254, at *3 (H.D. La. July 2, 2021)), at trial.
ULS also argues that expert testimony is necessary for the jury to calculate
future medical expenses. (/d. at 5-7). Since Plaintiff has not designated an expert to
testify to her future costs, ULS argues that any testimony on the topic of future
medical costs should be barred. (/d.). The chief support for ULS’s argument lies in its
reading of this Court’s decision in Salgado v. Electric Insurance Company. No. CV 18-
522-JWD-EWD, 2020 WL 6370992 (M.D. La. Oct. 29, 2020). There, after examining
Louisiana law on expert witness testimony for future medical expenses, the Court
concluded that under Louisiana law a plaintiff is “relieved of [her] burden to show
that the value of future medical expenses through expert testimony if [s]he has shown
that they are ‘necessary and inevitable’ and the record otherwise provides supporting
evidence of ‘a minimum amount that reasonable minds could not disagree will be
required.” Jd. at *7 (citing Stiles v. K Mart Corp., 597 So. 2d 1012, 1018 (La. 1992)).
Plaintiff has identified some evidence that will be offered at trial which supports the
proposition that future psychiatric care will be necessary and inevitable—the
proposed testimony of Julie Medlin. ULS nonetheless reasons that since the record is
currently void of any evidence pertaining to Plaintiff's medical expenses, the jury will
be unable to find a minimum amount of future medical expenses that reasonable
minds could not disagree will be required. (Doc. 160-1 at 6).
Like ULS’s argument pertaining to past medical damages, barring testimony
on or consideration of future medical costs is premature. Plaintiff contends that she
will testify to her medical expenses at trial. (Doc. 174 at 1). The Court therefore
cannot make a determination at this time as to whether the record supports a
minimum amount of future medical expenses, as the record is incomplete. If the
record is not sufficiently developed at trial, the Court will instruct and limit the jury
accordingly. ULS’s request for Plaintiff to be barred from presenting testimony on her
future medical expenses is denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that ULS’s Motion (Doc. 160) be as hereby DENIED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 30°7, of January, 2025
JUDGE BRIAN A. JA ON
UNITED STATES DI ICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA