United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ft. Myers Division
A. MAGNUSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the parties' Motions in
first Motion seeks the exclusion of seven different types of
evidence. a. Prior incidents One of the claims in
this case is that the Naples Waffle House should have been
aware of the danger of robberies because of robberies at
other Waffle Houses in the area. Defendant argues that
Plaintiff has failed to establish that the other incidents
are sufficiently similar to the incident involving him to
make those other incidents in any way probative of the issues
in this case.
establish his negligence claim, Plaintiff must show that the
attack was reasonably foreseeable. While similar incidents at
other Waffle Houses may not suffice to establish reasonable
foreseeability, it is certainly relevant to that issue. This
part of the Motion is denied.
contends that Plaintiff will seek to offer the opinions of a
Waffle House employee on several topics. As Plaintiff
describes the testimony, it is likely irrelevant to any issue
in the case. However, to the extent that this, or any,
witness's testimony strays into objectionable areas,
Defendant can object at that time. This part of the Motion is
denied without prejudice to objection during trial.
asks the Court to exclude evidence of the parties'
pretrial discovery disputes. Plaintiff has not responded to
this part of the Motion, apparently conceding that such
evidence is irrelevant. This part of the Motion is therefore
denied as moot.
contends that Plaintiff will offer commentary about
Defendant's failure to secure a clinical examination of
Plaintiff by Defendant's dental expert. Of course,
Plaintiff may inquire whether the expert conducted a clinical
exam. Whether further commentary on this issue is admissible
will depend on the evidence adduced at trial. This part of
the Motion is denied without prejudice.
Surveillance video footage
argues that Plaintiff will seek to introduce surveillance
footage from earlier in the evening to argue that Defendant
allowed a group of young people to remain in the restaurant
to socialize. Plaintiff contends that this video shows people
in the restaurant violating the restaurant's security
policies, but the Court has difficulty understanding why
video footage of individuals in the restaurant doing things
they should not have been doing is relevant to whether the
attack on Plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable. Absent a
showing that the video is somehow relevant to Plaintiff's
claims in this matter, the video is irrelevant. This part of
the Motion is granted, albeit without prejudice to any
proffer Plaintiff may wish to make regarding the video's
also moved to exclude surveillance footage from after the
incident, allegedly showing an employee counting his tips.
But Plaintiff believes that the footage actually shows this
employee with Plaintiff's wallet, establishing that the
employee was involved in the attack. While the Court cautions
the parties to ensure that the trial does not devolve into a
mini-trial on the issue of who perpetrated the attack, the
evidence regarding an employee's possible involvement in
the attack may be relevant. This part of the Motion is denied
without prejudice to specific objection at trial.