NEW ORLEANS – The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana has issued multiple decisions regarding motions to exclude evidence collected in the discovery period of a lawsuit arising from a motor vehicle accident in April 2017.
In the original lawsuit, plaintiff Kierra Thomas claims she “was driving an automobile westbound on Interstate 10 in the right-hand lane with plaintiffs Antoine Clark and Shirley Harris as passengers,” and that defendant Randall Chambers, who was driving a tractor-trailer next to the plaintiffs in the middle lane, attempted to move into the right-hand lane and struck Thomas’ vehicle.
Thomas and the passengers claim to have suffered “serious injuries to their necks and backs,” due to the incident, and have received medical treatment for the injuries. The defendants, however, claim that the plaintiffs “intentionally caused the collision in order to recover from [the] defendants in litigation.”
Among the motions Judge Sarah Vance ordered in the court’s May 6 statement include three from the plaintiffs: to exclude certain lay testimony; to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s phone records and records from other car accidents; and to exclude video surveillance evidence. Vance also issued orders upon motions from the defendants: to exclude evidence of settlements in other matters; to exclude evidence of Randall Chambers’ past conviction; and to exclude portions of the accident report and testimony by Officer Jassa Sengha.
In response to the motions, Vance stated this in the court order’s conclusion summary:
“For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to exclude certain lay testimony is granted in part and denied in part," the order stated. "Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of settlements in other matters is denied. Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude video surveillance evidence is denied. Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of Chambers’s past convictions is denied. And defendants’ motion to exclude portions of the accident report and testimony of Officer Sengha is granted in part and denied in part.”
The case is expected to resume with the changes put forth by the court.