Gilliland v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Group, LLC, 102815 NEDC, 8:12CV384

Docket Nº8:12CV384
Opinion JudgeLAURIE SMITH CAMP CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Party NameTERRENCE N. GILLILAND, DENISE M. GILLILAND, AND LUIS S. GALLEGOS, Plaintiffs, v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC, Defendant.
Case DateOctober 28, 2015
CourtUnited States District Courts, 8th Circuit, District of Nebraska

TERRENCE N. GILLILAND, DENISE M. GILLILAND, AND LUIS S. GALLEGOS, Plaintiffs,

v.

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC, Defendant.

No. 8:12CV384

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

October 28, 2015

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LAURIE SMITH CAMP CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Filing No. 169). The Plaintiffs request an evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Court’s previous Memorandum and Order dated April 29, 2015 (the “Order in Limine”) (Filing No. 166), and specifically request that the hearing take place prior to jury selection. The Defendant did not respond to the Motion. For the reasons stated, the Motion will be granted in part.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Relevant to this Motion, the Court’s Order in Limine granted the Defendant’s request to exclude evidence of the Defendant’s contacts with customers and evidence of certain warranty claims submitted to the Defendant. The Order in Limine also granted the Defendant’s request to exclude evidence of the Defendant’s Service Bulletins M-1214, M1215A, and M-1215B (the “Service Bulletins”).

DISCUSSION

The Order in Limine concluded that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the evidence at issue was admissible. Specifically, the Plaintiffs had not shown that, based upon the evidence before the Court, the customer contacts, warranty claims, and Service Bulletins addressed incidents substantially similar to the incident at issue in this case. Recognizing that evidence adduced at trial may demonstrate that the incidents were substantially similar, the Court stated that it would permit Plaintiffs to request a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of this evidence. The Plaintiffs have not specified a time for the hearing other than to request that it be held prior to jury selection. Plaintiffs argue they cannot prepare their case-in-chief absent a final ruling on the admissibility of such evidence.

The arguments Plaintiffs advance in support of their request for a hearing were already before the Court when it granted Defendant’s motions in limine. Thus, the Court need not convene a hearing merely to reconsider arguments upon which it has already ruled. The Order in Limine specified that the admissibility of the customer contacts, warranty claims, and Service Bulletins may depend on whether...

To continue reading

Request your trial