Vandervelden v. St. Louis Univ.

• Decision Date: 12 May 2022
• Docket Number: 3:18-CV-1333-NJR
• Parties: LISA VANDERVELDEN, Plaintiff, v. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois

LISA VANDERVELDEN, Plaintiff,
v.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.

No. 3:18-CV-1333-NJR

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 12, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court are Motion in Limine No. 4 and Motion in Limine No. 5 filed by Defendant Saint Louis University (SLU) (Docs. 168, 172). The United States of America has joined in Motion in Limine No. 5. (Docs. 174, 175). Plaintiff Lisa Vandervelden filed responses in opposition. (Docs. 169, 173).

Legal Standard

A district court may rule on motions in limine as part of its inherent authority to manage trials. Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002). Motions in limine are intended “to avoid the delay and occasional prejudice caused by objections and offers of proof at trial.” Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562, 566 (7th Cir. 1999). They also prevent the jury from hearing evidence that is “clearly inadmissible on all possible grounds.” Anglin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 139 F.Supp.2d 914, 917 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

In some instances, however, it is best to defer rulings until trial, where decisions can be better informed by the context, foundation, and relevance of the contested evidence within the framework of the trial as a whole. Id. “A pre-trial ruling denying a motion in limine does

1

not automatically mean that all evidence contested in the motion will be admitted at trial.” Delgado v. Mak, No. 06 CV 3757, 2008 WL 4367458, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2008). Because motion in limine rulings are preliminary, a federal district court reserves the power to make evidentiary rulings as a trial progresses and remains free to revisit or alter its earlier disposition of a motion in limine. See Perry v. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 248, 252 (7th Cir. 2013).

Discussion

I. Motion in Limine No. 4

In Motion in Limine No. 4 (Doc. 168), SLU asks the Court to bar Vandervelden's hired expert Dr. Charles Kodner, or any other witness, from giving the following opinion:

Based on review of these materials I believe the standard of care required that at the time of the June 30th visit the patient should have been scheduled to see an ENT for a consultation and biopsy within days of that visit and in no event longer than 10 days following that visit. In fact, the manner in which the referral was accomplished on July 31st should have been how it was accomplished on June 30th

SLU argues these opinions are untimely when they were not disclosed until November 22, 2021. Vandervelden's deadline for disclosing expert witnesses was August 14, 2020, and her deadline for disclosing rebuttal witnesses was May 24, 2021. SLU notes that Dr. Kodner had the information required to timely disclose this opinion within his first report and argues that late disclosure is not permitted simply because “another idea” pops into the mind of an expert.

In response, Vandervelden contends that Dr. Kodner based his supplemental opinion on his review of various disclosures, addendums, and deposition transcripts that he had not reviewed at the time of his deposition or at the time of his initial disclosure. Vandervelden asserts Dr. Kodner had a duty to supplement his disclosure, and he timely did so by

2

disclosing the opinion prior to the deadline for Rule 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures.

Under Rule 26(a)(2), a party must disclose by the court-ordered deadline a written report of a retained expert that includes “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” FED...