Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-373, SECTION "L" (1).
November 12, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to Admit the Revised Expert Report of Dr. Boudreaux (Rec. Doc. No. 29) filed by Defendant, a Motion to Amend Exhibit List and Witness List (Rec. Doc. No. 27) filed by Defendant, a Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. No. 41) filed by Plaintiff, and a Motion in Limine (Rec. Doc. No. 54) filed by Plaintiff. All of these are related to Plaintiff's long-term disability benefits. Plaintiff asserts that evidence of these benefits should not be admitted because they were not provided to Plaintiff in a timely manner and because of the collateral source rule.
The Court finds that in its opposition memorandum, Defendant has provided good cause to overcome the argument regarding timeliness. With respect to the collateral source rule, the Court notes that it is a substantive rule with evidentiary implications, see Phillips v. W. Co. of N. Am., 953 F.2d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 1992), and that as such, if evidence of the benefits is introduced and admitted at trial, the Court is not foreclosed from applying the substantive rule. Moreover, to the extent that the evidentiary rule reflects concerns about the potential prejudicial effect of such evidence on a jury, id. at 929-30, it is noted that this is a bench trial and that "[s]trict evidentiary rules of admissibility are generally relaxed in [such] trials." Moorhead v. Mitshubisi Aicraft Int'l, Inc., 828 F.2d 278, 287 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Null v. Wainwright, 508 F.2d 340, 344 (5th Cir. 1975)).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Admit the Revised Expert Report of Dr. Boudreaux (Rec. Doc. No. 29) and the Motion to Amend Exhibit List and Witness List (Rec. Doc. No. 27) filed by Defendant are hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. No. 41) and Motion in Limine (Rec. Doc. No. 54) filed by Plaintiff are hereby DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of November, 2010.