Trinidad v. Moore et al

Filing 138

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as follows: 1. Motion in Limine #5 (Doc. 94 ) is GRANTED. The Plaintiff is not to refer to any inference that Moore fled the scene of the accident at trial unless the Plaintiff first takes the issue up outside of the pre sence of the jury. 2. Motion in Limine #6 (Doc. 95 ) is GRANTED as to the Alabama Accident Report as affirmative evidence but is DENIED to the extent that the accident report is admissible for impeachment pursuant to Rule 613. 3. Motion in Limine #9 (Doc. 98 ) is DENIED. 4. Motion in Limine #11 (Doc 100 ) is GRANTED and all parties are prohibited from admitting into evidence or from referring to insurance coverage available to the Defendants for the claims in this lawsuit. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/23/2016. (dmn, )

Case 2:15-cv-00323-WHA-GMB Document 138 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 4

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

JOSE A. TRINIDAD
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL JOE MOORE, JR., and RDB
TRUCKING, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 2:15CV323- WHA
)
)
(wo)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the court on Defendants’ Motions in Limine #5, 6, 9, and 11 which
are Doc. #’s 94, 95, 98, and 100 respectively.
Motion in Limine #5
The Defendants ask the court to preclude the parties, their counsel, and witnesses from
referring to or admitting into evidence reference or implications that Defendant Moore, one of
the drivers in this case, attempted to flee the scene after the accident.
The Plaintiff argues in response that there is evidence that Moore chose to drive 1500 feet
away from the accident, and that evidence that a driver of a motor vehicle fled the scene of an
accident is admissible to show the defendant’s admission of guilt as being the cause of the
accident.
The court has reviewed cases cited by the Plaintiff. Evidence that a driver failed to stop
has been admitted for the purpose for which the Plaintiff argues in this case. See, e.g., Peterson
v. Henning, 452 N.E.2d 135 (Ill. App. 1983). In this case, however, the evidence is that the
1

Case 2:15-cv-00323-WHA-GMB Document 138 Filed 09/23/16 Page 2 of 4

driver, Moore, kept driving for a distance, but stopped. The Plaintiff has not cited any authority
for the proposition that intent to flee can be inferred from a distance driven, which then can
provide the basis for an inference that the driver is admitting responsibility.
The evidence of the distance Moore drove is relevant as part of the events of that day, and
admissible. Any comment about an inference to be drawn from driving that distance, from which
the jury is asked to draw an additional inference that Moore was admitting that he was the cause
of the accident, however, would be based on speculation, and would be unduly prejudicial under
Rule 403. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not to refer to any inference that Moore fled the scene of
the accident at trial unless he feels an inference is justified based on the state of the evidence at
that point in the trial, and he first takes the issue up outside of the presence of the jury.
Motion in Limine #6
In their sixth Motion in Limine, the Defendants seek to prohibit the introduction of the
Alabama Accident Report made in this case. The Defendants state that the accident report should
be excluded on two grounds: one, an Alabama statute, Ala. Code § 32-10-11, gives a privileged
status to automobile accident reports; and two, the report is hearsay under the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
In response, the Plaintiff argues the accident report is admissible for impeachment
pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 613. Under Rule 613(b), extrinsic evidence of an inconsistent statement
is admissible under certain circumstances, if the witness is given the opportunity to explain or
deny the statement, and the opposing party is given an opportunity to cross-examine. There may
be a need to redact portions of the record if they would be unduly prejudicial under Rule 403, but
because the Plaintiff did not attach the exhibit to his response, the court cannot make that
2

Case 2:15-cv-00323-WHA-GMB Document 138 Filed 09/23/16 Page 3 of 4

determination at this time.
If such evidence is offered within the requirements of the rule at trial, the court will give
a limiting instruction, if requested by the Defendants. See United States v. Feliciano, 761 F.3d
1202, 1210 (11th Cir. 2014). Therefore, the Motion in Limine will be denied only to the extent
that the Alabama Accident Report is used for impeachment by inconsistent statement.

Motion in Limine #9
In Motion in Limine nine, the Defendants ask the court to prohibit parties and witnesses
from referring to non-testifying witnesses. The Plaintiff characterizes this motion as
unreasonably vague.
The court agrees that without some identification of the non-testifying witnesses to whom
the Defendants refer, the court cannot make a ruling as to relevance under Rule 401, undue
prejudice under Rule 403, or hearsay. The Motion in Limine is, therefore, due to be denied. If the
Plaintiff solicits testimony regarding non-testifying witnesses which the Defendants contend will
violate these rules, the Defendants may object at that time.
Motion in Limine #11
In Motion in Limine eleven, the Defendants seek to exclude reference to liability
insurance under Federal Rule of Evidence 411. The Plaintiff has filed no response to this motion,
apparently conceding that the evidence should be excluded. Therefore, the Motion in Limine is
due to be GRANTED.
For the reasons discussed, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Motion in Limine #5 (Doc. #94) is GRANTED. The Plaintiff is not to refer to any
3

Case 2:15-cv-00323-WHA-GMB Document 138 Filed 09/23/16 Page 4 of 4

inference that Moore fled the scene of the accident at trial unless the Plaintiff first
takes the issue up outside of the presence of the jury.
2. Motion in Limine #6 (Doc. #95) is GRANTED as to the Alabama Accident Report as
affirmative evidence but is DENIED to the extent that the accident report is
admissible for impeachment pursuant to Rule 613.
3. Motion in Limine #9 (Doc. #98) is DENIED.
4. Motion in Limine #11 (Doc #100) is GRANTED and all parties are prohibited from
admitting into evidence or from referring to insurance coverage available to the
Defendants for the claims in this lawsuit.

Done this 23rd day of September, 2016.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4