LIMINE: Evidence Other Creditors Removed Disputed Account

Administrator
Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

LIMINE: Evidence Other Creditors Removed Disputed Account

Postby Administrator » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:38 pm

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION

DONALD E. ZIMMERMAN PLAINTIFFS
V. CASE NO. 1:07CV294
BANK OF AMERICA DEFENDANTS
Case 1:07-cv-00294-MPM

ORDER

This cause comes before the court on the motion in limine [49] of defendant, Bank of America (“BOA”), seeking to exclude investigations by four other creditors into the validity of the alleged debts of plaintiff, Donald E. Zimmerman, and evidence of other lawsuits between Zimmerman and BOA. At the time Zimmerman disputed the account in question, he also disputed four other accounts. Zimmerman alleges that each of the other four accounts were investigated and determined not to belong to him. He seeks to introduce evidence on this point to show that BOA acted unreasonably.
BOA claims it never had notice of the other disputes and thus they did not play in its decision making in regards to the disputed account. Zimmerman responds that even if BOA had no knowledge of the other disputes, the other companies’ actions show BOA acted unreasonably. The most basic rule of trials is that evidence must be relevant to be admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Evidence is relevant is it tends to prove or disprove any material issue of fact in a case. Fed. R. Evid. 401. It is easy to see how the fact other creditors took more care than BOA in deciding whether a disputed account was valid or not is relevant to show BOA acted unreasonably. However, it well may be that such evidence is more unfairly prejudicial than probative as defined by Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The court is unaware of what evidence Zimmerman actually plans to introduce. As such it is impossible to tell the value of the evidence or its prejudicial effect. BOA has only given the court a generalized statement about the nature of the evidence. Without more information the court can not make an informed decision in regards to the admissibility of the challenged evidence. The court next addresses the request for exclusion of other lawsuits. Neither party addresses the substance of these suits or how these other suits might be probative to the matter at hand. Zimmerman makes reference to the “eggshell plaintiff” rule in his response. The court can not fathom how this response relates to BOA’s request. Based on the lack of information given to the court, this motion will be denied in its entirety. The court finds these evidentiary disputes are best raised at trial. The court is certain neither party will attempt to introduce any evidence without a good faith basis the Rule of Evidence allow for its introduction. The motion in limine of BOA is DENIED.

This the 30th day of September, 2009.


/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
_________________
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association

Return to “Evidentiary Issues in FCRA Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests