BOWLING v. NETFLIX, INC.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: September 30, 2024
• Docket: 1:22-cv-01281
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

SARAH BOWLING, ) LORI KENNARD, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:22-cv-01281-TWP-MJD ) NETFLIX, INC., ) NETFLIX WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT, ) LLC, ) REALHOUSE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNDISCLOSED EXPERT TESTIMONY This matter is before the Court on Defendants Netflix, Inc., Netflix Worldwide Entertainment, LLC, and RealHouse Productions, LLC's (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Exclude Undisclosed Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs' Therapists (Filing No. 248). Plaintiffs Sarah Bowling and Lori Kennard (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege the Defendants disclosed their private identities as children of Dr. Donald Cline without their consent. At trial, Plaintiffs intend to offer testimony from their treating therapists regarding their alleged emotional distress. Defendants move to preclude Plaintiffs' therapists from offering expert testimony as to the cause of that distress. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Exclude is granted. I. LEGAL STANDARD "[J]udges have broad discretion in ruling on evidentiary questions during trial or before on motions in limine." Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002). The Court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not admissible for any purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Unless evidence meets this exacting standard, evidentiary rulings must be deferred until trial so questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice may be resolved in context. Id. at 1400–01. Moreover, denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion is admissible; rather, it only means that, at the pretrial stage, the Court is unable to

determine whether the evidence should be excluded. Id. at 1401. "The purpose of a motion in limine is not to weigh competing arguments about the strength of the parties' evidence and theories, nor is it to decide which party's assumptions are correct. A motion in limine weeds out evidence that is not admissible for any purpose." Washington Frontier League Baseball, LLC v. Zimmerman, No. 14-cv-1862, 2018 WL 3120623, at *2 (S.D. Ind. June 26, 2018). II. DISCUSSION Defendants assert that Plaintiffs intend to present lay testimony from their therapists as to their treatment of Plaintiffs (which Defendants do not oppose) and expert testimony as to the cause of Plaintiffs' alleged emotional distress. Plaintiffs did not disclose any of the therapists as expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, so Defendants argue that the therapists should be precluded from offering expert testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). In response, Plaintiffs

confirm they "did not offer any therapists as an expert witness in this case" and only intend to elicit testimony about the facts and circumstances of the therapists' treatment of Plaintiffs (Filing No. 252). Because Plaintiffs agree that the therapists were not disclosed as expert witnesses, and they do not intend to elicit expert testimony from the therapists, Defendants' Motion is unopposed and should be granted. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Exclude Undisclosed Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs' Therapists (Filing No. 248). An order in limine is not a final, appealable order. If the parties believe that evidence excluded by this Order becomes relevant or otherwise admissible during the trial, counsel may request a hearing outside the presence of the jury. Likewise, if the parties believe that specific evidence is inadmissible during the trial, counsel may raise specific objections to that evidence. SO ORDERED. Date: _ 9/30/2024 ( au \ atte» Vircitt Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Distribution: Brad Dennis Brian Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP brian@mto.com J. Benjamin Broadhead FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP (Indianapolis) broadhead@faegredrinker.com Matthew Thomas Ciulla MACGILL PC matthew.ciulla@macegilllaw.com Jesse Feitel DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP jessefeitel@dwt.com Robert D. MacGill MACGILL PC robert.macgill@macgilllaw.com Craig Ray Martin Greenberg Traurig Craig.Martin@gtlaw.com Sara A McDermott Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP sara.mcdermott@mto.com Andrea Roberts Pierson FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP (Indianapolis) andrea.pierson@faegredrinker.com

Rachel Strom Davis Wright Tremaine LLP rachelstrom@dwt.com

T. Joseph Wendt Barnes & Thornburg LLP jwendt@btlaw.com

Blanca Young Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP blanca.young@mto.com