Plaintiff Attorney Legal Information CenterIN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
ESTATE OF PATRICIA MARTIN,
By her personal representative James Martin,
And
DEANNA MARIE MELTON,
By her Father and Next Friend, Robert Melton
– Plaintiffs,
v.
MARYLAND MECHANICAL SYSTEM, INC.,
– Defendant.
CASE NO. 24-C-02-004042
Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinion Testimony from Richard Baker as to How the Accident Occurred
Plaintiffs, Estate of Patricia Martin, by her Personal Representative James Martin, and Deanna Marie Melton, by her Father and Next Friend, Robert Melton, by and through their undersigned counsel, request that this Court exclude opinion testimony from Richard Baker. In support, Plaintiffs state as follows:
- More sample motions in limine
- Get more example expert motions
- Get more discovery motions
The defendant is expected to reference in its opening statement and seek its expert Mr. Richard Baker’s opinion on how the accident in question occurred. Specifically, Defendant is expected to seek testimony from Mr. Baker that he believes that the accident was caused by an improper technique used by one of the decedent’s co-workers in cleaning a strainer.
It is expected that Mr. Baker will testify that: (1) he does not hold any opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty as to how the accident occurred; (2) he does not feel qualified to offer an opinion as to how the accident occurred; (3) other scenarios as to how the accident occurred are equally likely; (4) neither he nor Domino investigated the accident for the purpose of determining how it occurred; rather, he will testify the investigation was to make sure a similar accident did not occur again, and, accordingly, efforts were not made that would have been made had that been Domino’s or Mr. Baker’s purpose; (5) he did not know where Ms. Martin was burned at the time of his deposition and that has altered his views; and (6) he did not know at the time of his deposition that there was medical evidence that exposure to three gallons of this hot slurry could cause this injury.
Defendant should not try to solicit testimony from its own expert that the expert does not wish to give or believe that he is qualified to give nor should he be able to impeach his own witness with his prior testimony.
Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that this Court order Defendant not to suggest in opening or elicit through Mr. Baker his opinions as to how this accident occurred.
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
Laura G. Zois
1 South St, #2450n Baltimore, MD 21202
(410)779-4600
(410)760-8922 (fax)
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
Certificate of Service
We hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Richard Baker was sent via U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid, this 1st day of June 2018, to:
Douglas W. Biser, Esquire
Mudd, Harrison & Burch
Jefferson Building, Suite 300
105 West Chesapeake Avenue
Towson, Maryland, 21204
Counsel for Defendant
Carmel J. Snow, Esquire
2701 W. Patapsco Avenue, Suite 109
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
Counsel for Minor Plaintiff
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
ESTATE OF PATRICIA MARTIN, et al.,
– Plaintiffs,
v.
MARYLAND MECHANICAL SYSTEM, INC.,
– Defendant.
CASE NO.: 24-C-02-004042
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinion Testimony from Richard Baker, it is this _________ day of ________________________, 2018, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, hereby ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs’ motion be GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that Richard Baker’s testimony be excluded.
JUDGE