Henderson v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, LTD. et al

Filing 260

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re Plaintiffs' 209 Omnibus MOTION in Limine; and Plaintiff Pamela Stafford's 214 Motion in Limine. The court finds that the motions are due to be granted in part, denied in part, and reserved in part. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/27/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn, )

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

WILLIAM M. HENDERSON and,
PAMELA STAFFORD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES
NORTH AMERICA, LTD.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:11-CV-295-WKW
[WO]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are two motions: (1) Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion in Limine
(Doc. # 209); and (2) Plaintiff Pamela Stafford’s Motion in Limine (Doc. # 214).
The motions are fully briefed. After careful consideration of the arguments of
counsel, the appropriate law, and the allegations set forth in the amended
complaint, the court finds that the motions are due to be granted in part, denied in
part, and reserved in part.
I.

Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion in Limine (Doc. # 209)
A.

Collateral Source Payments

Ruling on this motion is deferred.

B.

Expert Testimony of Mr. Scavuzzo

Plaintiffs object to “any reference to or evidence, testimony, or argument
concerning any opinions or conclusions” rendered by Mr. Scavuzzo. (Doc. # 209
at 3.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendant did not comply with the Court’s Rule 26(f)
Order based on Defendant’s failure to properly identify Mr. Scavuzzo in their
initial disclosures or during their depositions. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Scavuzzo
did not provide a signed written report and that he has no opinions specific to this
case.
Mr. Scavuzzo is an employee of Defendant and has not been retained as an
expert in this case; therefore, he is not required to submit signed written reports.
Because Mr. Scavuzzo’s circumstances relevant to this case do not meet the
requirements set forth in Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude expert
evidence or testimony from him is denied.
C.

Any Static or Dynamic Inflation Retention Tests Evidence by
Defendant

Plaintiffs object to any evidence and testimony regarding Defendant’s
Inflation Retention test(s) because they are not relevant and will confuse the jury.
Defendant argues that “the purpose of the test was not to simulate the conditions of
the accident, but rather, to demonstrate the scientific or physical principles
concerning the function of different parts of tires with respect to air retention.”
(Doc. # 222 at 7–8.) The court agrees with Plaintiffs. The tests, which featured
2

drilling holes in the wheel rim, are not substantially similar to replicate the failures
alleged in this case and will tend to confuse the jury. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’
motion to exclude evidence or testimony relating to any static or dynamic inflation
retention tests is granted.
D.

Evidence that Plaintiffs Exceeded the Gross Vehicle Weight

Plaintiffs argue that any reference or evidence that Plaintiffs exceeded the
motorcycle’s gross vehicle weight is irrelevant to their allegations that the tire
failed due to manufacturing defects. Defendant argues that this information is
relevant to show that Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable care at the time of the
accident and will allow the jury to infer other potentially relevant characteristics
surrounding or causes of the accident.
This case is about allegations surrounding a tire failure, not a motorcycle
failure. Plaintiffs were overweight on the motorcycle weight limit but not on the
tire weight limit. Thus, the court will exclude argument relating to overweight
operation of the motorcycle, provided, however, that weight restrictions and weight
capacities on the tires and the motorcycle are relevant to the factual background of
the accident and may be put into evidence. Defendant is precluded, however, from
arguing causation or contributory negligence arising out of these facts.

3

E.

Evidence of Henderson’s Prior Arrest

Plaintiff Henderson argues that any evidence relating to his prior arrest for
possession of marijuana over twenty years ago should be excluded because it is
irrelevant. Defendant concedes that this arrest is not admissible evidence and thus,
the motion is granted.
F.

Evidence of Henderson’s Prior Motorcycle Accidents

Plaintiff Henderson argues that any evidence related to Mr. Henderson’s
prior motorcycle wrecks is not relevant to this case and will unfairly prejudice the
jury. Defendant argues that such evidence is relevant “to show Mr. Henderson’s
pre-existing injuries, which are relevant to causation and damages elements of his
claims in this litigation.” (Doc. # 222 at 18.)
Plaintiff Henderson’s motion is granted, except to rebut testimony by
Plaintiff that he was a safe motorcycle operator generally, or that he has had no
other motorcycle accidents.
II.

Plaintiff Pamela Stafford’s Motion in Limine (Doc. # 214)
A.

Prior Lawsuits filed by Stafford

Ms. Stafford argues that any evidence relating to any prior lawsuits she has
filed should be excluded because that information is not relevant and would
unfairly prejudice the jury.

Defendant concedes that such information is not

relevant to the case and thus, the motion is granted.
4

B.

Evidence relating to Stafford’s Marijuana Use and ER Records

Ms. Stafford argues that any evidence and/or testimony relating to her use of
marijuana or to the fact that she had marijuana in her urine at the time of the
accident as well as the hospital records and/or drug screen reflecting the same is
not admissible and would unfairly prejudice the jury.

Defendant argues this

information is relevant to rebut testimony pertaining to lifestyle and quality of life
before the accident, among other things.
The court will reserve ruling on this issue until proof is actually offered, in
order to determine relevance and balance the consideration of undue prejudice.
Defendant is precluded from mentioning the matter during opening statements.
C.

Evidence of Stafford’s Prior Convictions

Plaintiff Stafford argues that any reference or evidence to any prior arrests or
convictions of Stafford is not relevant to the case and would unfairly prejudice the
jury. Defendant argues that it is not aware of any prior convictions of Ms. Stafford
and that Ms. Stafford testified at deposition that she did not have any. If there is a
conviction, then it will be admissible to impeach Stafford’s credibility based on her
previous deposition testimony.
The court will reserve ruling on this issue until proof is actually offered, in
order to determine relevance and balance the consideration of undue prejudice.
Defendant is precluded from mentioning the matter during opening statements.
5

DONE this 27th day of November, 2013.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6