Trinidad v. Moore et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: This cause is before the court on the Plaintiff's 116 Objections to Defendants' Amended Exhibit List. It is ORDERED that the Objections are SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part as further set out in the order. As noted, a separate Order has been entered on the remaining objections to exhibits. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 12/22/2016. (dmn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JOSE A. TRINIDAD,
DANIEL JOE MOORE, JR., and
RDB TRUCKING, LLC,
Civil Action No. 2:15cv323-WHA
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the court on the Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants’ Amended
Exhibit List (Doc. #116).
Some of the Defendants’ Exhibits in their Amended Exhibit List are not objected to by
the Plaintiff, and will be admitted if offered at trial. They include Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28F, 30B, 30C, 30D, 30H, 30I, 30J, 35, 36, 38, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50,
52, 96, 97, 117, 118, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138,
139, and 143. In response to the Plaintiff’s Objections, the Defendants have withdrawn some of
their Exhibits, including Exhibits 4, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28-A, 28-B, 28-C, 28-D, 29, 30-F, 30-G,
42, 43, 47, 50, and 58. The court will, therefore, only address the Plaintiff’s objections to
exhibits which the Defendants intend to offer at trial.
The objections to Exhibits 44, 45, 46, 54, 56A-C, 57, 59, 60-90, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 114,
115, 119, and 122 are addressed by separate Order in response to the Plaintiff’s argument that the
Defendants failed to timely disclose these exhibits. However, the Plaintiff also objected to
Exhibits 48, 49, 50, 58, 91, 101, and 113 on the same non-disclosure ground, but, although given
additional time in which to respond to the Defendants’ argument, did not respond as to those
exhibits, either conceding that they were disclosed, or failing to show any prejudice from the
failure to timely disclose them. The objections to those exhibits, therefore, are due to be
The Plaintiffs’ objections to the remaining exhibits on the Defendants’ Amended Exhibit
List, and the Defendants’ responses are as follows:
Exhibit 5—This exhibit consists of the Plaintiff’s objections and responses to Defendant
RDB Trucking, LLC’s Interrogatories. The Plaintiff objects to the exhibit on the grounds that
this exhibit contains a discussion of collateral source evidence, Plaintiff’s legal objections, and
irrelevant information such as requests for information as to prior irrelevant lawsuits, an old
bankruptcy, and prior crimes.
The Defendants’ response in favor the admissibility of this exhibit is two-fold. The
Defendants first contend that the Plaintiff’s objection is improper because it should have been
raised before the deadline for objections to the original, not the Amended Exhibit List. This is an
argument raised by the Defendant in response to multiple objections by the Plaintiff, so the court
will address it here, but the reasoning is generally applicable to all of the Defendants’ similar
responses to objections to its Amended Exhibit list.
The issue of timing of the Plaintiff’s objections is a complicated one because the court
gave the parties additional time in which to file an Amended Exhibit List which more
specifically identified exhibits and gave additional time in which to object to the newlyidentified exhibits. (Doc. #76). The Defendants’ timely-filed Amended Exhibit List, however,
contains all of its exhibits, and not just newly-identified exhibits. (Doc. #89). Therefore, the
court does not find it appropriate to disregard the Plaintiff’s objections to the Amended Exhibit
Substantively, as to Exhibit 5, the Defendants respond that the exhibit is admissible over
the Plaintiff’s objections because it contains sworn statements, and that evidence as to collateral
source is admissible. The court has reviewed the exhibit. While there are detailed requests
which mention the categories of evidence identified by the Defendants, the Plaintiff’s responses
are not substantive. Instead, the Plaintiff’s responses consist of objections to the vagueness of
the request, or include statements such as, “[t]o the extent Plaintiff has responsive documents,
they will be produced.” While admission of a party can be admissible, and, as discussed in
ruling on a separate motion in limine on collateral sources, collateral source evidence can be as
well, the court can discern no basis for admission of the responses by Plaintiff as contained in
Exhibit 5. The objection is due to be SUSTAINED.
Exhibit 6 is the Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant
RDB Trucking, LLC’s Second Interrogatories and Requests for Production. The Plaintiff objects
to the admission of this exhibit and argues that this exhibit contains Plaintiff’s legal objections
and irrelevant information and account numbers in his tax returns. The Defendants respond that
personal information will be redacted and that the exhibit contains sworn statements by the
Unlike in Exhibit 5, in Exhibit 6, there is a substantive answer by the Plaintiff in response
to the Defendants’ requests. The Plaintiff sets out in the exhibit the equipment which was
maintained on the Plaintiff’s truck at the time of the accident. If the Defendants feel that that
information is relevant, the Defendants will be directed to redact the exhibit so that it only
includes that portion of the exhibit.
The Plaintiff’s tax returns also constitute a portion of Exhibit 6 and are the subject of a
Motion in Limine regarding failure to report income. Therefore, this portion of this exhibit is
subject to the order on that motion. If the Defendants contend that the tax records are admissible,
they are to redact the tax returns to exclude personal information, and take up the admissibility of
this exhibit outside the presence of the jury.
Exhibit 7 -11 are the reports and CVs of expert witnesses. Specifically, Exhibit 7 is the
report and CV of Expert Witness Joshua D. Moore, Exhibit 8 is Expert report and the CV of
Andrew Cordover, and Exhibit 9 is the Expert report and CV of John Dahlbert, Exhibit 10 is the
Expert Report and CV of John McKinney, and Exhibit 11 is Expert Report and CV of Bill
Messerschmidt. The Plaintiff does not object to the CVs, but objects to the reports as hearsay.1
The Defendants respond only that the Plaintiff failed to object to these when they were
initially designated, an objection which the court does not sustain, for the reasons previously
While the experts may testify as to opinions contained within their reports at trial, the
reports will not be admitted into evidence. See, e.g., Mahnke v. Washington Metro. Area Transit
Auth., 821 F. Supp. 2d 125, 154 (D.D.C. 2011) (noting that medical reports prepared by experts
The Defendants have objected to the admission of the Plaintiff’s experts’ CVs, and the Plaintiff
has responded that Defendants should not be allowed to offer their expert CVs if the Plaintiff is
not. By separate order, the court has stated that if the Defendants object to the Plaintiff’s experts’
CVs at trial, the court also will not admit the CVs of the Defendants’ experts.
are hearsay and are not admissible into evidence pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 802). The objections to
the reports as exhibits are due to be SUSTAINED.
Exhibit 12—is listed as information in reliance file of Joshua D. Moore. The Defendants
state on their Amended Exhibit List that Exhibits 12 through Exhibit 27 are only intended to be
offered if it becomes necessary to rebut the Plaintiff’s trucking safety expert on negligent
entrustment. Within Exhibits 12 through 27, the Plaintiff objects to Exhibits 12, 23, 24, and 26.
The Defendants have withdrawn exhibits 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.
The submission by the Defendants in response to the Plaintiff’s objections skips from
Exhibit 11 to Exhibit 26. The court cannot determine, therefore, whether Exhibit 12 is
admissible. It may be that it can be used, as indicated, for rebuttal, but the objection is due to be
SUSTAINED as to the use of Defendants’ Exhibit 12 as affirmative evidence.
Exhibit 26—this exhibit consists of Jose Trinidad’s driver’s logs. The Defendants
respond that this is part of the trucking safety expert’s file. If the expert relied on this evidence,
he may be able to testify consistently with that reliance, but that does not make the document
admissible as an exhibit, and the objection is due to be SUSTAINED. If the Defendants contend
that this exhibit is admissible, they will have to take up that issue outside of the presence of the
jury. Also contained within this exhibit is a log also listed by the Defendants as Exhibit 45. The
objection that exhibit is discussed in a separate Order.
Exhibit 28—is listed as information in reliance filed of Andrew Michael Cordover. The
Plaintiff objects stating that it does not appear that this evidence was produced. The Defendants
clarify that what formerly was identified as Exhibit 28 has been broken up into various exhibits
28A—F. This objection is, therefore, due to be SUSTAINED, because there is apparently no
free-standing Exhibit 28 being offered. Exhibits 28A, B, C, and D have been withdrawn.
Exhibit 28-E—consists of medical records reviewed by Dr. Iversen. The Plaintiff objects
to these as not being properly identified or produced. The Defendants respond that these are the
medical records which were relied upon by Dr. Iversen. The objection is due to overruled
because the Plaintiff has not disputed that his expert had, and relied on, these records.
Exhibit 30—this exhibit is listed as information in reliance file of John W. McKinney,
III, and is objected to as not having been produced in discovery. The Defendants respond that
this exhibit contains information in John McKinney’s file and will only be offedred if it becomes
necessary to rebut the Plaintiff’s vocational expert. There is no Exhibit 30 attached, so it appears
that there is no Exhibit 30, but only Exhibits 30A-G. The objection is due to be SUSTAINED
since there is no separate Exhibit 30.
Exhibit 30-A—the Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses (Doc. #147-2 at p.46). The Plaintiff
objects on grounds that this evidence includes discussion of collateral sources, includes
irrelevant information such as requests seeking information beyond the relevant time period,
prior lawsuits, a prior bankruptcy, and old prior crimes. As discussed above, if there is a portion
which can be considered as an admission, or relevant evidence as to collateral source, the rest of
the document will have to be redacted. Defendants should first take this up outside of the
presence of the jury.
Exhibit 30-E—the deposition of Jose Trinidad is objected to as hearsay. The Defendants
respond that a deposition of an adverse party can be used for any purpose under Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
32. While the Defendants may certainly use the deposition in cross-examining the Plaintiff, and
can use timely designations from a deposition as evidence read at trial, use of a deposition does
not require, and the court will not allow, the deposition to be admitted as an exhibit. The
objection is due to be SUSTAINED.
The Defendants have withdrawn Exhibit 30 F&G.
Exhibit 31—information in the reliance file of Bill Messerschmidt is objected to as not
having been timely produced. Again, there is no exhibit 31, but the exhibits formerly listed as
Exhibit 31 are now contained in exhibits 31A-41.
Exhibits 32, 33, 34—map of site, photographs, and video prepared by Messerschmidt
Safety Consultants, are all objected to by the Plaintiff as not having been timely produced.
The Defendants responded that these exhibits were identified in the expert disclosure
provided to the Plaintiff on April 25, 2016 and were provided to the Plaintiff when they were
identified on the exhibit list.
In his separate response to the court’s Order requesting the Plaintiff’s response to the
Defendants’ contention that various documents had been produced, the Plaintiff does not address
these exhibits. Therefore, the Plaintiff apparently concedes that they were produced, and has
made no objection based on admissibility. Accordingly, these objections are due to be
Exhibit 37—information decoded from the VIN numbers of the tractors is objected to as
irrelevant and as not being timely produced. The Defendants respond that this exhibit was
identified in the expert disclosure produced on April 25, 2016. The Defendants do not respond
to the relevance objection, only stating that the information is “reliance file information” for the
Defendants’ accident reconstructionist. The accident reconstructionist can testify to information
upon which he based an opinion, but until the Defendants make a showing as to relevance and
admissibility outside of the presence of the jury, the objection to the admission of Exhibit 37 as
an exhibit to be considered by the jury is due to be SUSTAINED.
Exhibits 39 and 40 are identified as a publication about acceleration and a drive response
times, respectively, which the Plaintiff objects to as hearsay and not having been produced.
Again, the Defendants represent that these were produced on April 25 and the information is in
the accident reconstructionist’s file. The Defendants further state that the Plaintiff’s accident
reconstructionist testified in his deposition that these articles are generally accepted in the field
of accident reconstruction.
Rule 803(18) of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that a statement in a learned treatise
or periodical which is relied on by the expert and is established as a reliable authority may be
read into evidence but not received as an exhibit. Therefore, while the accident reconstructionist
may read from the articles if the Defendants establish that they meet the requirements of the rule,
the objection is due to be SUSTAINED as to these documents being admitted as exhibits.
Exhibit 41—this exhibit consists of photographs of accident reconstruction which are
objected to by the Plaintiff as hearsay and lacking foundation. The Defendants respond that they
will lay the appropriate foundation for the pictures and may also use them as demonstrative aids.
The proferred exhibits are photographs at the scene with superimposed drawings and captions
which identify the three vehicles at issue, and purport to pinpoint the location of those vehicles at
various points in time. With proper foundation, these may be used as demonstrative aids, but the
objection is due to be SUSTAINED as to these demonstrative aids being admitted as exhibits.
Exhibit 43—certification of documents received from third-party subpoena of Gallagher
Bassett Services has been withdrawn by the Defendants, with the statement that they will only
use it if the Plaintiff objects to authenticity.
Exhibit 135 is also listed by the Defendants as DELETED
Exhibit 136 is identified as all income and wage information and is objected to as being
unclear. The exhibit is comprised of earning statements and tax returns, which is subject to the
court’s ruling on the Motion in Limine on that subject.
Exhibit 140, 141, 142, 144 are objected to as catch-all categories which include exhibits
which have not been introduced. The objection is due to be SUSTAINED as to these exhibits. If
new exhibits need to be identified for trial after the discovery allowed by the court in its Order on
the Motion to Continue, the parties can file appropriate motions at that time.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Objections are SUSTAINED in part and
OVERRULED in part as follows:
1. Exhibits of the Defendants which have not been objected to by the Plaintiff or
withdrawn by the Defendants and which will be admitted if offered are Defendants’
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, the cvs in 7-11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28F, 30B, 30C,
30D, 30H, 30I, 30J, 31A, 35, 36, 38, 96, 97, 117, 118, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127,
128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, and 143.
2. Exhibits to which an objection has been SUSTAINED, but the admissibility of which
may be addressed outside of the presence of the jury are Defendants’ Exhibits 6
(redacted), 26, 30A, 37, and 136.
3. Exhibits to which objections are SUSTAINED and the exhibits will not be admitted
as trial exhibits, although some may be used for other purposes as discussed above,
are Defendants’ Exhibits 5, the reports in 7- 11, 12, 30E, 39, 40, 41, 140, 141, 142,
4. Exhibits which may be admitted because the objections are OVERRULED, as
discussed, are Defendants’ Exhibits 28E, 32, 33, 34, 48, 49, 91, 101, and 113.
5. Objections are SUSTAINED as to Defendants’ Exhibits 28, 30, 31 because there are
no separate exhibits offered with those numbers.
As noted, a separate Order has been entered on the remaining objections to exhibits.
Done this 22nd day of December, 2016.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?