Estate of Robert W. Petersen, by and through Robert T. Petersen as Personal Representative; Estate of Mary Ann Simons, by and through Dean Simons as Personal Representative; and Estate of Charlotte Elaine Guilford, by and through Charles Guilford as Personal Representative v. Koelsch Senior Communities, LLC and Billings Partners, LLC d/b/a Canyon Creek

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Montana ruled on plaintiffs’ omnibus motions in limine in a negligence action arising from alleged failures to care for residents during the COVID-19 outbreak at an assisted living and memory care facility. The court denied four motions, allowing renewal of objections at trial for three, granted the motion concerning arguments impugning attorneys subject to a voir dire exception, and denied the motion to exclude defendants’ expert John Bowblis. The order addresses discovery-related impeachment evidence, expressions of sympathy, pleadings, attorney conduct, and the admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Holdings

1. The court declined to resolve the underlying discovery dispute before trial and denied the motion, with leave to renew objections at trial. Undisclosed information may be used solely for impeachment and only when applicable on cross-examination.
2. A motion in limine should be granted only when the challenged evidence is inadmissible on all potential grounds; otherwise, the court should ordinarily defer evidentiary rulings until trial.
3. The final pretrial order supersedes prior pleadings and controls the subsequent course and scope of the action; claims, issues, defenses, or damages theories omitted from the pretrial order are waived even if included in the complaint. The motion was nevertheless denied as vague and overbroad, with leave to renew objections at trial.
4. The motion to exclude arguments impugning counsel, including attorney advertising and how counsel came to represent the parties, was granted, except that the parties could ask prospective jurors during voir dire about familiarity with counsel and whether that familiarity would affect impartiality.
5. Dr. Bowblis was qualified under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and his proposed testimony was relevant and helpful to the jury. The motion to exclude his opinions was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exclude personnel information concerning former employees that Defendants allegedly failed to disclose in discovery.
2. Whether the court should prospectively exclude statements of sympathy, apologies, or references to opposing counsel as 'my friend' or by first name.
3. Whether references to allegations or claims in prior pleadings should be excluded because the final pretrial order superseded the pleadings.
4. Whether arguments impugning counsel, including attorney advertising and how counsel came to represent the parties, should be excluded, subject to voir dire questioning about jurors' familiarity with counsel.
5. Whether John Bowblis, Ph.D., was qualified under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and whether his proposed opinions were relevant and helpful to the jury.

Disposition

other