Buy This Entire Record For
Sanchez v. Hankook Tire Co., Ltd.
United States District Court, D. Nebraska
October 13, 2016
JULIO SANCHEZ, as Personal Representative of the Estate of DANIELA TESTA, deceased, and as Next Friend of INEZ MARIA SANCHEZ, a minor, and JULIO SANCHEZ, JR., a minor, and INELDA GUTIERREZ PRADINES; Plaintiffs,
HANKOOK TIRE CO., LTD.; Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Smith Camp Chief United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion in
Limine (ECF No. 67) and Defendant's Motions in Limine
(ECF Nos. 68, 70, 72, 77). For the reasons discussed below,
the Plaintiffs' motion will be granted in part; the
Defendant's motions at ECF Nos. 68 and 72 will be
granted; the Defendant's motion at ECF No. 70 will be
granted in part; and the parties' request for a hearing
on the Defendant's motion at ECF No. 77 will be granted.
Motion in Limine
Sanchez, as personal representative of the Estate of Daniela
Testa, deceased, and as next friend of I.M.S., a minor, A.S.,
a minor, and J.S.J., a minor, and Inelda Guitierrez Pradines
(“Plaintiffs”) move the Court to preclude
Defendant Hankook Tire Co., Ltd. (“Hankook”) from
presenting evidence or argument in the following categories:
1. Any reference to the filing of the motion in limine, or
any ruling on it.
2. The reading or presentation of objections or comments by
lawyers made during depositions.
3. Any attacks on the integrity of Plaintiffs' counsel,
or reference to alleged improper conduct of counsel during
the course of litigation.
4. Any reference to pre-judgment or post-judgment interest on
any award of damages, or any suggestion that the award may be
increased or enhanced by operation of law.
5. Any attempt to invoke local prejudice against lawyers,
parties, or witnesses who are not residents of Nebraska.
6. Any attempt to portray Plaintiffs' experts in a manner
that does not fairly depict their appearance at the time of
their depositions in this case.
7. Any reference to ownership or use of Hankook tires by fact
witnesses, Hankook experts, Hankook employees, or Hankook
8. Any suggestion that the tire at issue in this case
complied with, needed to comply with, or did not need to
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
9. Any suggestion that Hankook was named as Defendant due to
its financial ability ...