Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-1311, SECTION "J" (1).
July 9, 2003.
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is Defendant Northland Insurance Company's ("Northland") Motion in Limine and Alternatively, Motion to Continue (Rec. Doc. 39) which is set for a hearing on the briefs today. Plaintiff John Lewis Copeland, Jr. ("Copeland") has filed a memorandum in opposition (Rec. Doc. 45). Northland's motion relates to Copeland's claims for past lost wages and future loss of earning capacity damages. In its motion, Northland argues that all evidence of past income not reported on an income tax return should be inadmissible at trial. Northland contends that Copeland cannot prove at trial that he was earning wages at the rate of $80,000 per year at the time of the accident, when his tax returns allegedly reflect annual income after expenses of not more than $17,000. According to Northland, any witness testimony not corroborated by income tax returns must be excluded.
Northland's motion also seeks the exclusion of "additional witnesses and evidence based on tests never revealed and reports not heretofore produced to defendant". See Rec. Doc. 39, at 1. However, at the final pretrial conference today, the Court granted a continuance of the trial date to allow the parties to complete all necessary discovery related to these additional witnesses and exhibits. Therefore, these issues are now moot.
Northland improperly relies on Louisiana law in support of its motion in limine seeking an evidentiary ruling from the Court. The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to all cases litigated in federal court, whether jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, or some other basis. FED. R. EVID. 101. Northland makes no effort to show how evidence of past income is not relevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and/or 403.
Furthermore, Northland argues that Copeland's alleged failure to report past income on his tax return should be weighed heavily against his credibility. In addition to his own testimony, Copeland plans to call George Benedetto to corroborate evidence of past income. Northland will have the opportunity during trial to cross-examine Copeland and any corroborating witness to discredit the testimony as to past income. After being instructed on the governing law, the jury, not the Court, will then have the opportunity to weigh the conflicting evidence introduced during trial to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Miller v. Butcher Distributors, 89 F.3d 265, 268 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 375 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc)). There is no reason that Copeland's proposed evidence of past income should be deemed inadmissible at this time.
Accordingly;
It is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Northland Insurance Company's Motion in Limine (Rec. Doc. 39) is DENIED.