Jernigan v. Crawford

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: January 25, 2021
• Docket: 8:19-cv-02343
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

ANTOINETTE RENNE JERNIGAN and ELLA MAE ROGERS.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 8:19-cv-2343-KKM-CPT

DANIEL ALLEN CRAWFORD and COLE BRENDAN CRAWFORD,

Defendants. / ORDER The plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Permit Medical Bill Summary,” which seeks pretrial permission to admit into evidence “a summary of medical bills” under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 (Doc. 22). Essentially, the plaintiffs request the Court enter a pretrial ruling allowing them to enter a summary exhibit into evidence at trial. (Doc. 22, p. 2). The plaintiffs represent that defendants have not indicated their position on this motion. (Doc. 22, p. 3). The plaintiffs’ motion is denied without prejudice as premature. If this case proceeds to trial (currently scheduled for the June 2021 trial term), the parties may file their motions in limine closer in time to the final pretrial conference. After those motions become ripe, the Court will then consider whether to rule on them before trial or wait for the benefit of full development of the predicate facts for admission into evidence. See Roberts v. Charter Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 105 F.R.D. 492, 493 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (denying without prejudice motion in limine seeking pretrial ruling on admissibility of evidence at

trial); Robinson v. Linde Lift Truck, No. 8:01-CV-281-T-23MAP, 2003 WL 25686836, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2003) (Merryday, J.) (same). The parties are, of course, free to enter into stipulations ahead of trial. But the Court will not adjudicate motions in limine

filed months before the scheduled trial. The Court reminds the parties to strictly follow the Local Rules1 and all Court orders. The plaintiffs failed to follow Local Rule 3.01(g)—although counsel attempted to confer with opposing counsel, the plaintiffs failed to fulfill their continuing duty to

supplement their motion and advise the Court on the defendants’ position. Similarly, the defendants failed to follow Local Rule 3.01(b) because they never responded to the plaintiffs’ motion within fourteen days, even though expressly directed to do so by the

Court. (Doc. 24). Future failures to strictly follow the Local Rules and Court orders may result in motions being stricken or being deemed unopposed. The plaintiffs’ “Motion to Permit Medical Bill Summary” (Doc. 22) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. The parties may file motions in limine at a date closer in time to the pretrial conference.

1 On February 1, 2021, revisions to the Middle District of Florida’s Local Rules will take effect. See Local Rules, https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/local-rules (last visited Jan 21, 2021). ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 25, 2021.

7 a4 Mizelle United States District Judge