IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
Mary Smith – Plaintiff
v
Margaret A. Jones – Defendant
CASE NO.: 05-C-06-6511
Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony of Jamie Chester
Now comes the Plaintiff, Mary Smith, by and through her attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Laura G. Zois, and Miller & Zois, LLC, requests that this Court preclude testimony from Emily Chester because she was identified after the discovery deadline. In support, Plaintiff states as follows:
- Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories asked Plaintiff to identify the witnesses to the accident. Defendant stated that there were none “other than the parties to the occurrence.” See Defendant’s Answers to Interrogatories attached as Exhibit A.
- At deposition, Plaintiff discussed a bank teller named “Christine” who witnessed the accident. See Plaintiff’s deposition at pp. 53, 57, 74-75, 80-82, attached as Exhibit B.
- In their answers to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories, Defendant references Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, naming “the bank teller previously identified by the Plaintiff at her deposition . . .” (emphasis added). See Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories attached as Exhibit C.
- The discovery deadline passed on September 6, 2011. See Scheduling Order, attached as Exhibit D.
- Defendant refused to answer discovery that was due after this date. See Plaintiff’s Fifth Set of Interrogatories, attached as Exhibit E, which were filed before the close of discovery.
- By letter on October 27, 2011, less than a month before trial and well after the discovery deadline, Plaintiff identified Emily Chester as a witness. Defendant referenced Plaintiff’s mention of “Christine” at her deposition and said that “Defendant has now learned the bank teller in question was Emily Chester . . ..” (emphasis added). See Exhibit F.
- Defendant noted Ms. Chester’s trial deposition for March 19, 2012 on March 11, 2012. See Exhibit G. (While Plaintiff did not agree to the waive the notice requirement, Plaintiff does not seek relief for this violation of the Maryland Rules.)
- Plaintiff’s counsel spoke to Ms. Chester on March 16, 2012. She indicated she was working with Christine on that day; accordingly, they are different people.
- This witness should be excluded for two reasons: (1) her name was not identified after the discovery deadline; and (2) she is not the witness that Plaintiff identified at her deposition. Bank tellers are not interchangeable. They are separate witnesses and each need to be identified at the appropriate time. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that this Court strike the testimony of Emily Chester.
Respectfully submitted,
Miller & Zois, LLC
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
1 South St, #2450
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410)779-4600
(410)760-8922 (fax)
Certificate of Service
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
Mary Smith – Plaintiff
v
Margaret A. Jones – Defendant
CASE NO.: 05-C-06-6511
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony of Jamie Chester; it is this _________ day of _____________, 2012, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, hereby
ORDERED, that the Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and Emily Chester is precluding from testifying by deposition or videotape at this trial.
JUDGE
COPIES TO:
Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Esq.
Laura G. Zois, Esq.
Miller & Zois, LLC
Baltimore, MD 21202
Back to Sample Motions in Limine