Opinion
3:20CV220-M-RP
11-23-2021
VIVIAN WARREN PLAINTIFF v. DANIEL B. FORE, A/K/A DANIEL B. FORE, MD DEFENDANT
ORDER
MICHAEL P. MILLS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion in Limine [89] to preclude any questioning or reference to whether Dr. Fore or any of his expert witnesses have been sued in any other case or have been represented by Lewis Thomason or its predecessor Thomas, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson, and Mitchell in any other case. Plaintiff argues that this evidence would be offered in compliance with the Federal Rules of Evidence and would only be used for impeachment.
Even if relevant, the Court may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 403. Testimony regarding Dr. Fore's prior lawsuits and Dr. Fore's choice of representation is not relevant to the current case, and even if it were found relevant, the danger of unfair prejudice would substantially outweigh its relevance.
ACCORDINGLY, it is therefore ordered that Defendant's Motion in Limine [89] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED