Vaughn Kelly, Sr. v. Kroger Limited Partnership I, CAC Operations LLC, and Nolan Booth

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi addresses objections in the pretrial order, including blanket objections to exhibits and challenges to witnesses allegedly not disclosed during discovery. The court discusses the handling of discovery-related objections, incomplete motions in limine, and the admissibility of evidence concerning CAC Operations LLC’s prior and subsequent business practices under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The court states its current inclination regarding limiting instructions and the relevance of extrinsic acts to the plaintiff’s claims against CAC and Kroger.

Holdings

1. Objections to witnesses based on alleged nondisclosure during discovery should ordinarily be addressed in a pretrial motion rather than for the first time at trial, particularly where the magistrate judge supervised or was more familiar with the discovery process.
2. A party that knowingly submits an incomplete motion in limine and fails to notify the court or seek additional time is not entitled to an entirely clean slate to raise the omitted issues at trial.
3. Evidence of subsequent similar acts may be relevant and admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for a non-character purpose, subject to the Rule 403 balancing requirement.
4. The court may permit evidence of CAC's extrinsic acts for limited purposes, including determining CAC's intent or malice and whether Kroger knew or should have known of CAC's alleged misconduct, while prohibiting its use to determine what occurred in the underlying altercation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants' blanket objections to plaintiff's proposed exhibits and witnesses should be resolved at trial or through pretrial proceedings.
2. Whether Kroger was entitled to raise at trial evidentiary issues concerning exhibits omitted from its motion in limine.
3. Whether evidence of CAC's prior or subsequent similar acts could be admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 for purposes other than proving character.
4. Whether the court should limit plaintiff's presentation of evidence concerning CAC's business practices and provide limiting instructions concerning the uses of that evidence.

Disposition

other