State Court of Fulton County
`**E-FILED**
`18EV001613
`9/18/2019 6:46 PM
`
`LeNora Ponzo, Clerk
`Civil Division
`
`IN THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
`
`STATE OF GEORGIA
`
`LESLIE MOORE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`FILE NO.: 18EV001613
`
`MARGARET SIKES AND DAVID SIKES,
`
`Defendants.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL CONSOLIDATED PRE-TRIAL ORDER
`
`The following constitutes a supplemental Pre-Trial Order entered in the above-styled case
`
`after conference with counsel for the parties:
`
`1.
`
`The name, address, and phone number of the attorneys who will conduct the trial are
`
`as follows:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`SHERRI ALLEN, ESQ.
`GA State Bar No. 810072
`
`sherrigalsherriallenlawcom
`For Leslie Moore
`
`Allen Law, LLC
`
`5784 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 231
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30328
`Phone: (404) 474-4242/Fax: (404) 382-7605
`
`For Defendants:
`ROBERTA. LUSKIN, ESQ.
`GA State Bar No. 004383
`
`rluskin@gm—llp.com
`CHRISTINA L. GUALTIERI, ESQ.
`GA State Bar No. 455425
`
`cgualtieri@gm-llp.c0m
`For Margaret Sikes and David Sikes
`Goodman McGufley LLP
`3340 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 2100
`
`

`

`Atlanta, GA 30326-1084
`
`Phone: (404) 264-1500/Fax: (404) 264-1 737
`
`2.
`
`The estimated time required for trial is:
`
`3 days, inclusive ofjury selection.
`
`3.
`
`There are no motions or other matters pending for consideration by the Court except as
`
`follows:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`The Plaintiffs Motions in Limine are as follows:
`
`1. Prohibiting any argument, evidence, testimony, or implication that plaintiff had at
`
`access to a collateral source for payment of his medical expenses. “Impeachment by evidence of
`
`collateral sources is only allowed if the false testimony is related to a material issue in the case.”
`
`Warren v. Ballard, 266 Ga. 408, 410 (I996).
`
`“The collateral source rule bars a tortfeasor from offering evidence that a claimant has
`
`received payment from a third party-such as an insurer-for damage caused by the tortfeasor’s
`
`conduct. ‘This is because a tortfeasor is not allowed to benefit by its wrongful conduct or to
`
`mitigate its liability by collateral sources provided by others.’ Generally, therefore, a claimant
`
`may sue a tortfeasor and seek recovery for damages caused by tortious conduct, even if the
`
`claimant has been reimbursed by his insurer.” Wardlaw v. Ivey, 297 Ga. App. 240, 244 (2009)
`
`(citing and quoting Hoeflick 1/. Bradley, 282 Ga. App. 123, 124 (2006)).
`
`2. Prohibiting any argument, evidence, testimony, suggestion, or implication, that a
`
`verdict against the defendant will have an adverse financial impact on the defendant. “The
`
`general rule is that evidence of the wealth or worldly circumstances of a party litigant is never
`
`admissible, except in those cases Where position or wealth is necessarily involved.”
`
`Northwestern University v. Crisp, 21] Ga. 636, 641 (1955). Here, the worldly circumstance of
`
`

`

`the defendant is irrelevant to issues of negligence, proximate cause, or damages.
`
`3. Prohibiting any evidence of any criminal record of the plaintiff or a witness in the
`
`absence of a certified copy of a felony conviction or misdemeanor crime involving moral
`
`turpitude. Kimbrough V. State, 254 Ga. 504 (1985). See also Hood v. State, 179 Ga. App. 387
`
`(I 986).
`
`5. Prohibiting any testimony, comment, implication, or question, regarding when
`
`plaintiff hired an attorney, when he decided to file a lawsuit, or if anyone encouraged him to file
`
`suit or the decision regarding where to seek medical treatment. Such evidence is irrelevant to the
`
`issues presented.
`
`6. Prohibiting defense counsel from attempting to use medical records, employment
`
`records, or academic records prepared by health care providers or administrators to “refresh” the
`
`memories of any witnesses other than the record prepared by the health care providers or the
`
`facility where the health care provider worked. In McEntyre v. McRae, 240 Ga. App. 148
`
`(1999), the defense sought to “refresh” the plaintiff’s memory through the use of a letter
`
`prepared by the plaintiffs employer. The trial court refused the defense’s request and defendant
`
`appealed. “Although a witness may refresh her memory by referring to a writing prepared by
`
`herself or prepared by another at her direction or in her presence,
`
`[w]hen the document is
`
`"7
`
`prepared by a third person not in the presence of a witness, the memory is not refreshed by such
`
`memorandum and such testimony is inadmissible. [Cit.]” Atlanta Fire Systems v. Alexander
`
`Underwriters &c., 185 Ga.App. 873, 875 (4), 366 S.E.2d 197(1988); Zilinmon v. State, 234 Ga.
`
`535, 53 7(3), 216 S.E.2d 830 (I 975). The trial court did not err in refilsing to allow McEntyre to
`
`show McRae the letter written by McRae's employer to McEntyre's counsel.” McEntyre, 240
`
`Ga. App. at 149.
`
`

`

`7. Prohibiting any argument comparing plaintiff’s personal injury lawsuit to
`
`playing the lottery, a game of chance, or “an opportunity”. Any such argument is improper and
`
`should be excluded.
`
`There is no Georgia authority what has addressed this issue. However, the Supreme Court
`
`of South Dakota considered this issue, and its opinion in Schoon v. Loobv, 2003 SD. 123,670
`
`N. W. 2d 885 (2003) is enlightening and instructive. In Schoon, the plaintiff in a medical
`
`malpractice case appealed from a defense verdict and the denial of a motion for new trial. The
`
`basis for the appeal was improper comments made by defense counsel during final argument.
`
`Those comments included referring to the lawsuit as the plaintiffs’ quest for “lotto or power ball
`
`or whatever they call it, let’s really roll the dice big.” Schoon, 670 S. W. 2d at 890.
`
`In reversing the trial court's denial of the plaintiff’ s motion for new trial, the South Dakota
`
`Supreme Court wrote:
`
`“Defense counsel's accusation that plaintiff was trying to hit the lottery by her lawsuit
`demeaned not only the plaintiff but also the judicial system itself. The comments
`denigrated the fairness, integrity and public perception of the judicial system.
`Counsel's reference to playing lotto or power ball, or rolling the dice, were only meant
`to inflame the jury and were beyond the bounds of proper final argument. These
`comments would not have gone unheeded by the jury. The judge and jury rely on the
`lawyers to present their arguments to help the jury sort out the evidence and understand
`how the law applies to the facts. Interposing remarks such as we see here add nothing
`t that objective, and can only be meant to persuade the jury to decide the case based on
`passion and prejudice. “Id. at 891. (Emphasis Supplied)
`
`Because of the prejudicial and inflammatory nature of such an argument, any suggestion
`
`that Plaintiff’s interest is in such things as” hitting it big, gambling, or playing the lottery” -
`
`rather than in compensation for. actual injuries sustained - should be precluded as demeaning not
`
`only to the plaintiff, but to the judicial system itself.
`
`

`

`8 . Prohibiting defense counsel from referring to and questioning Plaintiff and
`
`Christopher Thomas, Plaintiff‘s massage therapist by referring to the name Leggs Nikkimo. Such
`
`evidence is irrelevant to the issues presented and has no probative value to the issues pursuant to
`
`O.C.G.A Section 24-4-401 because reference to said name does not have any tendency to make
`
`the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
`
`less probable than it would be without reference to the name.
`
`9. Prohibiting defense counsel from referring to settlement negotiations between the
`
`parties prior to trial pursuant to O.C.G.A. Section 24—4-408.
`
`Other motions or matters pending for consideration by the Court is Plaintiff’ 8 Motion to
`
`Strike Defendants Answer for Failure to Appear at Mediation. Plaintiff, reserves the right to file
`
`other necessary Motions which will not delay the trial of this case during the trial of this case and
`
`may file motions to compel non-parties to produce documents that have not been produced
`
`pursuant to a properly served Request for Production of Document.
`
`Plaintiff may file a motion pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9—11—68 depending upon the judgment.
`
`For Defendants:
`
`Defendants reserve the right to file Motions in Limine, which will not delay the trial of this
`
`case. Defendants may file other motions beyond Motions in Limine as they become necessary,
`
`including filing motions during the trial of this case.
`
`Additionally, and depending upon the judgment, Defendants may file a motion pursuant to
`
`O.C.G.A. § 9—11—68.
`
`4.
`
`The jury Will be qualified as to relationship with the following:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`

`

`(a) Any relationship by blood or marriage to Margaret Sikes, David Sikes or Elizabeth Sikes,
`
`Terry Marks, Edward Marks
`
`(b) Any relationships by blood or marriage to officers, directors, employees and shareholders
`
`of Allstate Insurance Company or State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.
`
`(c) Policyholders, employees, officer, director or agents of Defendants’ insurer Allstate
`
`Insurance Company or State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.
`
`((1) Officers, directors, employees or students of Mimosa Elementary School, Marist High School, or
`
`Mt. Vernon Presbyterian Church or School.
`
`(c) Any relationship by blood or marriage to Defense counsel or employees, officers or directors of
`
`Defense counsels law firm.
`
`Plaintiffs request that the jury be qualified with regard to all pertinent qualifications,
`
`including disqualifying ties to any insurers, during voir dire and in open court. See Mordecai v.
`
`Cain, 338 Ga. App. 526 (2016).
`
`For Defendants:
`
`Leslie Moore, Margaret Sikes, David Sikes, Sherri Allen, members of the firm Allen Law,
`
`LLC., and AICA Ortho Spine, P.C. Defendants also request the jury be pre-qualified as to the officers
`
`and directors of Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and Casualty
`
`Company.
`
`5.
`
`(a)
`
`All discovery has been completed, unless otherwise noted, and the Court will not
`
`consider any further motions to compel discovery except for good cause shown. The parties,
`
`however, shall be permitted to take depositions of any person(s) for the preservation of
`
`evidence for use at trial.
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`

`

`Plaintiffs intend to pursue any outstanding requests regarding discovery from non—parties.
`
`Plaintiff will take depositions of any person(s) for the preservation of evidence for use at trial and
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to take a discovery deposition of any expert witness Defendant intends to
`
`call at trial.
`
`For Defendants:
`
`Defendants intend to pursue any outstanding requests for Plaintiff’s medical records from
`
`non—parties.
`
`(b)
`
`Unless otherwise noted, the names of the parties as shown in the caption to this order
`
`are correct and complete and there is no question by any party as to the misjoined or nonjoinder of
`
`any parties.
`
`6.
`
`The follovn'ng is the Plaintiff’s brief and succinct outline of the case and contentions:
`
`Plaintiff Leslie Moore was involved in a motor vehicle collision caused by Defendant
`
`Margaret Sikes. On December 23, 2015, Defendant Margaret Sikes rear—ended Plaintiff Leslie
`
`Moore’s vehicle while she was stopped yielding for traffic that was traveling westbound on
`
`Abernathy Road near State Road 400. Shortly before the accident Plaintiff Leslie Moore exited
`
`State Road 400 southbound and stopped at the end of the off—ramp yielding for oncoming traffic
`
`traveling west on Abernathy Road when the motor vehicle that she was driving was forcibly struck
`
`in the rear by Defendant Margaret Sikes, who was inattentive and had begun driving her vehicle
`
`without waiting for Plaintiff Leslie Moore to begin driving. Defendant Margaret Sikes
`
`inattentiveness and failure to follow the rules of the road were the proximate cause of Plaintiff
`
`Leslie Moore’s injuries and damages. As a proximate result of the motor vehicle collision Plaintiff
`
`Leslie Moore sustained personal injuries, and suffered pain and discomfort to her head, neck and
`
`back, including a bulging disc at L4-5. Plaintiff Leslie Moore received medical treatment for her
`
`

`

`accident related injuries and missed time from work. Plaintiff Leslie Moore also sustained property
`
`damage to her motor vehicle. Plaintiff Leslie Moore’s total damages as a proximate result of the
`
`accident are $12,757.75. The breakdown is the following:
`
`AICA Ortho and Spine
`
`Christopher Thomas, Massage Therapist
`
`Loss of Earnings
`
`Property Damage
`
`Total
`
`$ 7,622.00
`
`$
`
`$
`
`540.00
`
`603.47
`
`$ 3,992.28
`
`$ 12,757.75
`
`Plaintiff contends that all of the treatment that she received for her accident—related injuries
`
`were reasonable and necessary. Plaintiff further contends that her medical bills and massage therapy
`
`bills are reasonable. Plaintiff contends that she should be fully compensated for the damages and
`
`injuries that she sustained as a proximate cause of the motor vehicle collision.
`
`7.
`
`The following is the Defendants’ brief and succinct outline of the case and contentions:
`
`PREAMBLE: Defendants object to the reading of Plaintiff’s outline of the case to the
`
`jury.
`
`At approximately 2:37 pm. on Wednesday, December 23, 2015, Defendant Margaret Sikes
`
`was driving her vehicle on Abernathy Road West in Sandy Springs, Fulton County, Georgia. After
`
`exiting the southbound lanes of Georgia Highway 400 onto Abernathy Road, Ms. Sikes was looking
`
`in the opposite direction of Plaintiff Leslie Moore’s vehicle and did not realize Ms. Moore had
`
`stopped. Ms. Sikes did not have time to stop her vehicle before she rear-ended Ms. Moore’s vehicle.
`
`Ms. Sikes admits simple negligence for causing the automobile accident but denies causation and
`
`damages.
`
`Defendant David Sikes was the owner of the vehicle Defendant Margaret Sikes was driving
`
`at the time of the accident at issue in this lawsuit, but the vehicle was not a “family purpose” vehicle.
`
`

`

`Defendants further deny the nature and extent of the injuries alleged by Plaintiff in this
`
`lawsuit, if any. Defendants deny that Plaintiff’s treatment and bills are reasonable or necessary. The
`
`Plaintiff may also be exaggerating the nature and extent of the alleged injuries.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff has alleged special damages as follows:
`
`$ 7,622.00
`AICA Ortho & Spine
`$
`540.00
`Massages
`Property Damage
`$ 3,992.28
`
`Lost Wages
`$
`603.47
`Total
`$ 12,757.75
`
`However, Plaintiff donated her vehicle to charity and no longer is the titled owner of the
`
`vehicle she was driving at the time of the accident at issue in this lawsuit.
`
`8.
`
`The issues for determination by the jury are as follows:
`
`For Plaintiffi
`
`(a) Liability;
`
`(b) Causation;
`
`(c) Damages;
`
`For Defendants:
`
`With regard to Defendant Margaret Sikes:
`
`(a)
`
`Proximate cause; and
`
`(b)
`
`Damages.
`
`With regard to Defendant David Sikes:
`
`(a) Liability;
`
`(b) Proximate cause; and
`
`(c) Damages.
`
`9. Specifications of negligence including applicable code sections are as follows:
`
`

`

`Common law principles of negligence, proximate cause, damages and mitigation of
`
`damages. Defendant Margaret Sikes violated: O.C.G.A. §40-6- 72, (stop signs and yield signs);
`
`O.C.G.A. Section 40-6-73 (entering or crossing roadway); O.C.G.A. 40-6-49 (following too
`
`closely) and all other code sections that may be proven by the evidence actually elicited at trial.
`
`10. If the case is based on a contract, either oral or written, the terms of the contract are as
`
`follows (or, the contract is attached as an Exhibit to this order):
`
`None.
`
`11.
`
`The types of damages and the applicable measure of those damages are stated as follows:
`
`For Plaintifi”:
`
`Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to recovery for any special damages, including medical
`
`costs, loss of earnings, pain and suffering and that Defendants are not entitled to a discount as to any
`
`of Plaintiff’s damages being paid for by insurance; Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to be fully
`
`compensated for the property damage to her vehicle and the loss of use of her vehicle, including
`
`inconvenience due to Defendant’s negligence. The enlightened conscience of the jury.
`
`For Defendants:
`
`(a)
`
`Plaintiff 5 medical bills:
`
`the reasonable and necessary amount thereof; and
`
`(b)
`
`Pain and suffering: The enlightened conscience of the jury.
`
`12.
`
`If the case involves a divorce, each party shall present to the Court at the pre-trial
`
`conference the affidavits required by Rule 24.2.
`
`This case does not involve divorce.
`
`13.
`
`The following facts are stipulated:
`
`None.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`14.
`
`The following is a list of all documentary and physical evidence that will be tendered at
`
`the trial by the Plaintiff or Defendant. Unless noted, the parties have stipulated as to the
`
`authenticity of the documents listed and the exhibits listed may be admitted Without
`
`further proof of authenticity. All exhibits shall be marked by counsel prior to trial so as
`
`not to delay the trial before the jury.
`
`For Plaintifi":
`
`(a) Medical records and bills from AICA Ortho & Spine, P.C.;
`
`(b)
`
`Plaintiff’s Massage Therapy Bills and Payments;
`
`(0)
`
`Loss of Earnings and Employment records from American Airlines;
`
`((1) Georgia Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Report;
`
`(6) Repair Estimate from Classic Collision 0f Buckhead;
`
`(t) Defendants responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of
`
`Documents and documents produced therein;
`
`(g)
`
`Photographs of the respective vehicles driven by the Plaintiff and Defendant Margaret
`
`Sikes at the time of the accident at issue in this lawsuit;
`
`(h) Any photographs, CDs, videos produced by any party in this litigation or dash cam video
`
`produced by law enforcement;
`
`(i) A diagram and photographs of the collision scene;
`
`(j) Any document produced by any party during discovery;
`
`(k) All pleadings of record;
`
`(1) Any document produced by a non-party;
`
`(m) Any correspondence between the parties, their agents and employees;
`
`(n) Any affidavit signed by any party or Witness in this case;
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`(0) Any correspondence between Defendant and non—parties;
`
`(p) Any documentary or physical evidence listed by Defendants; and
`
`(q) Any documentary or physical evidence used for rebuttal or impeachment purposes.
`
`Plaintiffs do not stipulate to the authenticity of any documents listed by Defendant. The
`
`listing of a document by Plaintiff does not constitute waiver of the right to object to the authenticity
`
`or lack of foundation of any document listed by Defendants. Plaintiff respectfully reserve the right
`
`to supplement and/or amend this portion of the Pre—Trial Order with proper notice to the Court and
`
`to the Parties.
`
`Plaintiffs have not been afforded the opportunity to review the Defendants trial exhibits and
`
`accordingly cannot stipulate to the authenticity of the same. Plaintiffs reserve the right to raise any
`
`objections to the Defendants documentary and/or physical evidence upon the same being properly
`
`marked and tendered into evidence. Plaintiffs object to the admission of any document or photograph
`
`not produced by the Defendants in discovery.
`
`Plaintiff has provided Defendants with a certified copy of her medical records and bills from
`
`AICA Ortho and Spine. Plaintiff intends to produce the AICA Ortho & Spine, P.C., medical
`
`records at trial pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24—8—803(6). Plaintiff has advised Defendants that
`
`certified medical records from Plaintiff s employer, American Airlines will be provided to
`
`Defendants as soon as they are received by Plaintiff’s counsel. Certified records of Plaintiffs
`
`preliminary property damage estimate from Classic Collision is being provided by Classic
`
`Collision’s in-house counsel, Kaufman and Foreman, PC, to both parties.
`
`For Defendants:
`
`(a) Medical records and bills from AICA Ortho & Spine, P.C.;
`
`(b) Records and bills from Christopher Thomas, Massage Therapist;
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`(0)
`
`Insurance records from Blue Cross Blue Shield;
`
`((1) Employment records from American Airlines;
`
`(e)
`
`Property Repair Estimates;
`
`(1‘) Georgia Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Report;
`
`(g)
`
`Plaintiff” s Response to Defendants Margaret Sikes and David Sikes’ Interrogatories and
`
`Request for Production of Documents;
`
`(h) Documents produced by Plaintiff in response to Defendants Margaret Sikes and David
`
`Sikes’ Request for Production of Documents;
`
`(i)
`
`Photographs of the respective vehicles driven by the Plaintiff and Defendant Margaret
`
`Sikes at the time of the accident at issue in this lawsuit;
`
`(j) Any photographs, CDs, videos produced by any party in this litigation;
`
`(k) Any document produced by any party during discovery;
`
`(1) All pleadings of record;
`
`(m) Any document produced by a non-party;
`
`(n) Any correspondence between the parties, their agents and employees;
`
`(0) Any affidavit signed by any party or witness in this case;
`
`(p) Any correspondence between Plaintiff and non-parties;
`
`(q) Any documentary or physical evidence listed by Plaintiff; and
`
`(r) Any documentary or physical evidence used for rebuttal or impeachment purposes.
`
`Defendants do not stipulate to the authenticity of any documents listed by Plaintiff. The
`
`listing of a document by Defendants does not constitute waiver of the right to object to the
`
`authenticity or lack of foundation of any document listed by Plaintiff. Defendants respectfully
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`reserve the right to supplement and/or amend this portion of the Pre—Trial Order with proper notice
`
`to the Court and to the Parties.
`
`Defendants object to any document listed by Plaintiff that was requested during discovery
`
`but not produced during discovery.
`
`15.
`
`Special authorities relied upon by Plaintiff relating to peculiar evidentiary or other legal
`
`questions are as follows:
`
`Defendants are barred from asserting defenses not specifically pled in their answer. O.C.G.A.
`
`§ 9-11-12(h); Plaintiff is unaware of any other peculiar evidentiary or legal questions at this time, but
`
`should any arise, Plaintiff will bring authority to resolve same to the Court’s attention.
`
`16.
`
`Special authorities relied upon by Defendants relating to peculiar evidentiary or other
`
`legal questions are as follows:
`
`None other than those that may be raised in Defendants Margaret Sikes and David Sikes’
`
`Motions in Limine or other issues of law as they may arise during the trial of this case.
`
`17.
`
`All requests to charge anticipated at the time of trial Will be filed in accordance with
`
`Rule 10.3.
`
`18.
`
`The testimony of the following persons may be introduced by depositions:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`Any witness whose deposition was taken, who is unavailable for trial pursuant to
`
`O.C.G.A. § 9—1 1—32 or is a medical care provider of the Plaintiff. Any expert disclosed by Plaintiff
`
`or Defendants; Any objection to the depositions or questions or arguments in the depositions shall
`
`be called to the attention of the Court prior to trial. Plaintiff objects to Defendants presenting any
`
`witness testimony pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24—8—826 that was not timely or properly noticed, if Plaintiff
`
`has not had sufficient time to object and cross examine the witness at deposition. Plaintiff objects to
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`the reading of any deposition at trial without a proper showing of unavailability, with the exception
`
`of Plaintiff 3 medical providers. Plaintiff reserves the right to take any additional depositions for use
`
`as evidence and/or discovery depositions.
`
`For Defendants:
`
`(a)
`
`Leslie Moore;
`
`(b) Margaret Sikes;
`
`(c)
`
`Plaintiff’s medical providers; and
`
`((1) Any expert witness disclosed by Plaintiff or Defendants;
`
`(e) Any other witness who may be unavailable for trial.
`
`Defendants object to Plaintiff presenting any witness testimony pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-8-
`
`826 that was not timely or properly noticed, where Defendants have not had sufficient time to object
`
`and cross examine the witness at deposition.
`
`Further, Defendants object to the reading of any deposition at trial without a proper showing
`
`of unavailability. Any objection to the depositions or questions or arguments in the depositions
`
`shall be called to the attention of the court prior to trial.
`
`19.
`
`The following are lists of witnesses the
`
`Plaintiff will have present at trial:
`
`(a)
`
`Plaintiff Leslie Moore;
`
`Plaintiff may have present at trial:
`
`(a)
`
`Police Officer K.D. Savvtell;
`
`(b)
`
`Raquel Moore;
`
`(0)
`
`Michael Killian;
`
`((1)
`
`Defendant Margaret Sikes;
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`(e)
`
`Defendant David Sikes;
`
`(f)
`
`Lindsey Crawley, D.C.;
`
`(g)
`
`Christopher Thomas, Massage Therapist;
`
`(11)
`
`Any witness listed by Plaintiff or Defendant either in discovery or at depositions;
`
`(i)
`
`(1)
`
`Any person identified by Defendants in their portion of the Pre-Trial Order;
`
`Any records custodian needed for authentication; and
`
`(k)
`
`Any impeachment or rebuttal witnesses.
`
`Defendants will have present at trial:
`
`None.
`
`Defendant may have present at trial:
`
`(a)
`
`Plaintiff Leslie Moore;
`
`(b) Defendant Margaret Sikes;
`
`(0) Defendant David Sikes;
`
`((1) Officer Sawtell (Badge Number 0167) of the Sandy Springs Police Department;
`
`(e) Any of Plaintiff s medical providers;
`
`(f) Any witness listed by Plaintiff either in discovery or at depositions;
`
`(g) Any person identified by Plaintiff in his portion of the Pre-Tn'al Order;
`
`(h) Any records custodian needed for authentication; and
`
`(i) Any impeachment or rebuttal witnesses.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the generic “ any of Plaintiffs medical providers” and asks the ‘Court
`
`to disallow any witness who is not listed by specific name. This is an attempt by Defendants to
`
`deprive the Plaintiff of an opportunity to meet with and/or depose said witnesses in effect
`
`depriving Plaintiff of his right of discovery. The purpose of a Pre-Trial Order is to prevent
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`surprise and trial by ambush. Specific names are to be provided in the interests of fair play and in
`
`not slowing down the trial and/or taking up the Court‘s time during trial to deal with issues that
`
`may relate to the nonspecified witnesses.
`
`Defendants object to any witness listed by Plaintiff not identified during discovery.
`
`The parties respectfully reserve the right to supplement and/or amend this portion of the
`
`Pre-Trial Order with proper notice to the Court and to the opposing party.
`
`The parties may rely on representation by the designated party that he/she will have a
`
`witness present unless notice to the contrary is given in sufficient time prior to trial to allow the
`
`other party to subpoena the witness or obtain his/her testimony by other means. The parties object
`
`to any witness identified by Plaintiff or Defendants that was requested during discovery, but not
`
`identified during discovery or any witness not specifically identified by name.
`
`The parties reserve the right to call as a rebuttal witness any person of whom the parties
`
`become aware at trial and whose testimony can rebut any testimony given by the opposite party
`
`or any witnesses for the opposing party.
`
`20.
`
`The form of all possible verdicts to be considered by the jury are as follows:
`
`We, the Jury, find in favor of the Plaintiff Leslie Moore in the amount of $
`
`. (DO
`
`NOT reduce this number if you find fault of any party. The Judge will do that based on the
`
`percentages below).
`
`(b) The percentages of fault are as follows:
`
`% Defendant Margaret Sikes;
`
`
`
`% Defendant David Sikes;
`
`(c) We, the Jury, find in favor of the Defendants.
`
`21.
`
`(a)
`
`The possibilities of settling the case are: poor.
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`(b)
`
`The parties do want the case reported.
`
`(c)
`
`The cost of take-down Will be shared equally by the parties.
`
`(d)
`
`Other matters: Deposition Objections: Prior to trial, counsel shall make a good faith
`
`effort to resolve any objections in depositions to be presented at trial. All unresolved objections,
`
`together with argument and citations, shall be filed, with a copy to the Court, no later than
`
`5 days prior to trial. Any objections not brought before the Court five (5) days prior to trial shall
`
`be deemed waived.
`
`Plaintiff objects to any demonstrative evidence not previously disclosed to Plaintiff by
`
`Defendants.
`
`Dated this 18th day of September 2019.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`ALLEN LAW, LLC
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff Leslie Moore
`
`By:
`
`
`Shem/DAM
`
`SHERRI ALLEN, ESQ.
`GA State Bar No. 810072
`
`sherri@sherriallenlaw.com
`Allen Law, LLC
`
`5784 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 231
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30328
`(404) 474-4242 Phone
`
`GOODMAN MCGUFFEY LLP
`
`Attorneys for Margaret Sikes and David Sikes
`
`SHERRI ALLEN FOR
`
`
`ROBERT A. LUSKIN (per oral agreement)
`GA State Bar No. 004383
`
`rluskin@GM-LLP.com
`CHRISTINA L. GUALTIERI
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`GA State Bar No. 455425
`
`CGualtieri@GM-LLP.corn
`3340 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 2100
`
`Atlanta, GA 30326-1084
`(404) 264-1500 Phone / (404) 264-1737 Fax
`
`PRE-TRIAL ORDER
`
`It is hereby ORDERED that the foregoing, including the attachments thereto, constitutes the
`
`PRE—TRIAL ORDER in the above case and supersedes the pleadings which may not be further
`
`amended except by order of the court to prevent manifest injustice.
`
`ORDERED this _ day of
`
`, 2019.
`
`
`
`The Honorable Susan E. Edlein
`
`Judge, Fulton County State Court
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that l have this day served a copy of the foregoing Consolidated Pre—trial
`
`Order by e-filing and depositing same in the United States Mail in a properly addressed envelope
`
`with adequate postage thereon to:
`
`Robert A. Luskin, Esq.
`Christina L. Gualtieri, Esq.
`Goodman McGuffey LLP
`3340 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 2100
`Atlanta, Georgia 30326-1084
`
`This 18th day of September 2019.
`
`She/rm? Alla/v
`
`Sherri Allen, Esq.
`
`