Aburto v. Oats et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER: it is ORDERED that Espy's motion in limine (doc. 58 ) is DENIED to the extent that it requests preclusion of Aburto's medical bills satisfied by a collateral source. It is further ORDERED that Espy's motion in limine (doc. 58 ) is GRANTED in all other respects. It is further ORDERED that Aburto's motion in limine (doc. 59 ) is DENIED to the extent that it requests the exclusion of evidence pertaining to when he sought legal consultation ; evidence correlating vehicle damages with his injuries; and evidence of Aburto's medical bills and subrogation. It is further ORDERED that Aburto's motion in limine (doc. 59 ) is GRANTED in all other respects. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 1/19/2023. (cwl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
GENARO ABURTO,
Plaintiff,
v.
J. KAZ ESPY, as Administrator
of the Estate of Ralph Edmond Oates,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-cv-12-ECM
)
(WO)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Now pending before the Court are motions in limine filed by Defendant J. Kaz Espy
(“Espy”) (doc. 58) and Plaintiff Genaro Aburto (“Aburto”) (doc. 59). Espy requests exclusion
at trial of eight items. Aburto did not file an objection to any of these items. Aburto’s motion
requests exclusion at trial of thirteen items, but Espy only objects to two items. (Doc. 63).
Accordingly, upon review of the motions, they will be granted in part and denied in part.
II. SHARED REQUESTS
The following requests are made by both parties, and upon review by the Court, are
due to be granted. The parties ask this Court to enter an Order in Limine to prohibit evidence,
argument, or mention of the following items at trial:

1.

Financial status of the parties

Both parties, in their respective motions in limine (docs. 58 ¶ 1 at 1; 59 ¶ 8 at 6), seek
to exclude any reference to the wealth or financial condition of either party. These motions
are GRANTED.
2.

Medical treatment that is not properly authenticated

Both parties, in their respective motions in limine (docs. 58 ¶ 2 at 1–2; 59 ¶ 6 at 4–5),
seek to exclude any reference to medical treatment without proper authentication or
foundation. These motions are GRANTED.
3.

Settlement negotiations

Both parties, in their respective motions in limine (docs. 58 ¶ 6 at 3; 59 ¶ 2 at 3–4),
seek to exclude any reference to settlement negations or offers of compromise. These motions
are GRANTED.
4.

Driving records

Both parties, in their respective motions in limine (docs. 58 ¶ 7 at 3–4; 59 ¶ 3 at 4),
seek to exclude any reference to the parties’ driving histories. These motions are GRANTED.
5.

Accident report

Both parties, in their respective motions in limine (docs. 58 ¶ 8 at 4; 59 ¶ 12 at 8), seek
to exclude any reference to the accident report in this case. These motions are GRANTED.
III. ESPY’S UNOPPOSED MOTION IN LIMINE
1.

Speculative future medical treatment and expenses

Espy, in his motion in limine (doc. 58 ¶ 4 at 2), argues that any speculative testimony
or argument concerning future medical treatment, diagnoses, or expenses, without the
2

necessary evidentiary predicate, should be excluded. Aburto does not oppose this request.
Speculative future medical treatment is not relevant to determine damages under Alabama
law. See Ala. River Grp., Inc. v. Conecuh Timber, Inc., 261 So. 3d 226, 263 (Ala. 2017)
(“Damages may be awarded only where they are reasonably certain. Damages may not be
based upon speculation.” (alteration adopted) (citation omitted)). Thus, evidence of such at
trial would also be irrelevant. Espy’s motion in limine is GRANTED.
2.

Medical bills that are not properly authenticated

Espy, in his motion in limine (docs. 58 ¶ 3 at 2), seeks to exclude any reference to
medical bills without proper authentication or foundation. This motion is GRANTED.
3.

Medical bills not incurred

Espy, in his motion in limine (docs. 58 ¶ 5 at 3), seeks to preclude Aburto from
referring to or using medical bills satisfied by a collateral source to establish damages. Espy’s
motion in limine on this request is DENIED without prejudice.
IV. ABURTO’S MOTION IN LIMINE
A.

Uncontested Motion
1.

Testimony of witnesses not previously disclosed or evidence not previously
produced

Aburto, in his motion in limine (doc. 59 ¶ 1 at 3), seeks to preclude Espy from
presenting testimony of any undisclosed witnesses and from admitting unproduced evidence.
Espy does not oppose this request. This motion is GRANTED.

3

2.

Criminal history

Aburto seeks to preclude Espy from producing evidence related to Aburto’s alleged
criminal history. (Doc. 59 ¶ 4 at 4). Espy does not oppose this request. This motion is
GRANTED.
3.

Other lawsuits

Aburto seeks to preclude Espy from producing evidence of unrelated lawsuits.
(Doc. 59 ¶ 5 at 4). Espy does not oppose this request. This motion is GRANTED.
4.

Privileged communications

Aburto seeks to preclude Espy from referencing privileged communications between
Aburto and his attorneys. (Doc. 59 ¶ 9 at 6). Espy does not oppose this request. This motion
is GRANTED.
5.

Medical bills not incurred

Aburto seeks to preclude Espy from admitting Aburto’s medical bills and evidence of
subrogation. (Doc. 59 ¶ 11 at 7). Espy’s motion in limine on this request is DENIED without
prejudice.
6.

Citizenship

Aburto seeks to preclude Espy from making any inference to Aburto’s citizenship.
(Doc. 59 ¶ 13 at 8). Espy does not oppose this request. This motion is GRANTED.
B.

Contested Motion
1.

When Aburto sought legal consultation or hired an attorney

Aburto, in his motion in limine (doc. 59 ¶ 7 at 5), argues that any reference as to when
he sought legal consultation or hired an attorney should be excluded as irrelevant. Espy
4

contends, however, that questioning about the timing of Aburto’s actions is indeed relevant
and probative to the ultimate issue of this case, as it gives the jury a full chronological picture
of Aburto’s state of mind at the time immediately after the accident. Because relevancy is the
only basis on which Aburto seeks to have this evidence excluded, and because the timing in
which he sought legal consultation could be relevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 401
and 402, this motion in limine is DENIED without prejudice.
2.

Correlation between vehicle damage and Aburto’s injuries

Aburto argues that any testimony, argument, or opinion that correlates vehicle damage
with his injuries would be irrelevant because it requires expert testimony. (Doc. 58 ¶ 10 at 6–
7). However, Aburto has not established that the jury would require specialized, scientific,
or technical testimony from an expert under Rule 702 to properly consider this evidence.
Furthermore, as Espy maintains, both parties seek to produce pictures of the damaged vehicles
in this case. It is therefore relevant under Rules 401 and 402 for the parties’ counsel to
comment on these photographs about, among other things, an element of Aburto’s cause of
action: the alleged injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, this motion is DENIED.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for good cause, it is
ORDERED that Espy’s motion in limine (doc. 58) is DENIED to the extent that it
requests preclusion of Aburto’s medical bills satisfied by a collateral source. It is further
ORDERED that Espy’s motion in limine (doc. 58) is GRANTED in all other respects.
It is further

5

ORDERED that Aburto’s motion in limine (doc. 59) is DENIED to the extent that it
requests the exclusion of evidence pertaining to when he sought legal consultation; evidence
correlating vehicle damages with his injuries; and evidence of Aburto’s medical bills and
subrogation. It is further
ORDERED that Aburto’s motion in limine (doc. 59) is GRANTED in all other
respects.
DONE this 19th day of January, 2023.

/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6