McKinney v. Kenan Advantage Group, Inc.

Filing 74

ORDER directing as follows: (1) the plf's 62 MOTION in Limine is GRANTED to the extent that the accident report will not be admitted as evidence, DENIED to the extent that the expert witness will be allowed to give an opinion as to the cau se of the accident and related matters based on the materials he considered, and GRANTED as to others without firsthand knowledge; (2) the def's 48 First MOTION in Limine and 50 Second MOTION in Limine are GRANTED, as further set out i n order; (3) the def's objections to plf's witnesses Tim Birchfield, Tommy Mitchell, Pastor Joel Miller, and Pastor David Warren are OVERRULED as moot; (4) the def's remaining motions in limine and both parties remaining objections to exhibit lists and witness lists will be taken up in separate orders. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/11/15. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
NAOMI MCKINNEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
KENAN TRANSPORT, LLC,
Defendant.

CASE NO: 2:14-CV-002-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This cause is before the court on Plaintiff Naomi McKinney’s Motion in Limine (Doc.
# 62), and the Response thereto filed by Defendant Kenan Transport, LLC on March 10, 2015
(Doc. # 68). Also before the court are the Defendant’s First (Doc. # 48) and Second (Doc. # 50)
Motions in Limine and the Responses thereto (Doc. # 71) filed by the Plaintiff on March 10,
2015. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has responded to the Defendant’s Objections (Doc. # 59) to four
of its witnesses by stating it no longer plans to call those witnesses (Doc. # 70).
For the reasons to be discussed, the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine is due to be GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part; the Defendant’s First and Second Motions in Limine are due to be
GRANTED; and the Defendant’s Objections to the witnesses listed below are due to be
OVERRULED as moot. Motions and Objections not disposed of in this order will be taken up in
separate orders.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
The Motion in Limine contains two parts. As to the first part, the Defendant has

1

conceded that the accident report in this case is not admissible, and further adds that the related
diagram is not admissible despite Plaintiff’s statement that it did not object to use of the diagram.
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine will be GRANTED as to the accident report.
In the second part of the Motion in Limine, the Plaintiff seeks to exclude “opinion
testimony regarding the cause of the accident made the basis of the lawsuit, the speed of the
vehicles involved in this accident, and/or how this accident occurred.” (Doc. # 62 at 2.) The
Plaintiff further argues that “[s]uch testimony or evidence by anyone who was neither a witness
to the accident nor has any firsthand knowledge of this accident is inadmissible.” (Id.) The
Defendant responds that insofar as the Motion in Limine seeks to exclude testimony on these
topics by its expert, the personal knowledge requirement in Fed. R. Evid. 602 is not applicable to
expert witnesses, and that accident reconstruction experts are routinely permitted to testify on
these topics in automobile accident cases.
While lay witnesses without firsthand knowledge cannot testify as to the facts of the
accident, the court agrees with the Defendant that an expert witness’s opinion testimony is
explicitly exempted from Rule 602. Therefore, to the extent that the expert witness will be
permitted to testify as to his opinion on the cause of the accident and related matters, the Motion
in Limine is due to be DENIED. As to non-expert witnesses, without firsthand knowledge, the
Motion is GRANTED.
B. Defendant’s First and Second Motions in Limine
The Plaintiff has stated that she does not object to the Defendant’s First and Second
Motions in Limine. The First Motion in Limine (Doc. # 48) seeks to exclude any evidence or
mention of insurance coverage for the Defendant. The Second Motion in Limine (Doc. # 50)
seeks to exclude any evidence or discussion of the comparative wealth of the parties. Because

2

the Plaintiff has stated no objections to them, the Defendant’s First and Second Motions in
Limine are due to be GRANTED.
C. Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Amended Witness List
In her response, the Plaintiff has stated that she will not be calling Tim Birchfield,
Tommy Mitchell, Pastor Joel Miller, or Pastor David Warren as witnesses. Therefore, the
objections to these witnesses are due to be OVERRULED as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. # 62) is GRANTED to the extent that the accident
report will not be admitted as evidence, DENIED to the extent that the expert witness will
be allowed to give an opinion as to the cause of the accident and related matters based on
the materials he considered, and GRANTED as to others without firsthand knowledge.
2. The Defendant’s First (Doc. # 48) and Second (Doc. # 50) Motions in Limine are
GRANTED. The parties are not to mention or offer testimony on the topics of insurance
coverage for the Defendant and the comparative wealth of the parties.
3. The Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s witnesses Tim Birchfield, Tommy Mitchell,
Pastor Joel Miller, and Pastor David Warren are OVERRULED as moot.
4. The Defendant’s remaining Motions in Limine and both parties’ remaining Objections to
Exhibit Lists and Witness Lists will be taken up in separate orders.

DONE this 11th day of March, 2015.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3