Kyle Anthony Lewis v. United States America

Filing 52

MINUTES OF Motion Hearing and Final Pretrial Conference held before Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude All Testimony from Defendant's Experts 27 ; Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Collateral Sources 28 ; Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert's Opinions Based on Undisclosed MRI Images 29 ; Defendant's Motion in Limine NO. 2 to Exclude Portion of Police Report 30 . Plaintiff 9;s motion in limine no. 1 is DENIED without prejudice, subject to a further showing at trial. Plaintiff's motion in limine no. 2 is DENIED. The Government's motion in limine no. 1 is DENIED. The Court GRANTS the Government's unopposed motion in limine no. 2. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-cv-08354-CAS(ASx)

Title

KYLE ANTHONY LEWIS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’

September 26, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Laura Elias
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Michael Karns

Garrett Coyle, AUSA

Proceedings:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ALL
TESTIMONY FROM DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS (Dkt 27, filed
August 29, 2016)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
COLLATERAL SOURCES (Dkt 28, filed August 29, 2016)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINIONS BASED ON
UNDISCLOSED MRI IMAGES (Dkt 29, filed August 29, 2016)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
PORTION OF POLICE REPORT (Dkt 30, filed August 29, 2016)

I.

INTRODUCTION

On October 27, 2015, plaintiff Kyle Anthony Lewis brought this action alleging
that on January 9, 2015, Sue Ann Chavez, an employee of the United States Postal
Service, negligently caused a motor vehicle collision with plaintiff’s vehicle. Dkt. 4.
Plaintiff seeks damages for past and future medical care and general damages. A bench
trial is set to commence in this action on October 18, 2016.
On August 29, 2016 plaintiff filed two motions in limine. Dkts. 27, 28. The
government filed its opposition to plaintiff’s motions on September 1 and 2, 2016. Dkts.
36, 38. Also on August 29, 2016, the government filed two motions in limine. Dkts. 29,
30. Plaintiff filed his opposition to the government’s first motion on September 1, 2016.
Dkt. 35. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the government’s second motion.
CV-8354 (09/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-08354-CAS(ASx)

September 26, 2016

Title

KYLE ANTHONY LEWIS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes
as follows.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion in limine is “a procedural device to obtain an early and preliminary
ruling on the admissibility of evidence.” Goodman v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t,
963 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1046 (D. Nev. 2013). Trial courts have broad discretion when
ruling on such motions. See Jenkins v. Chrysler Motor Corp., 316 F.3d 664, 664 (7th
Cir. 2002). Moreover, such rulings are provisional and “not binding on the trial judge”
on the court. Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000). “Denial of a motion
in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion will be
admitted at trial. Denial merely means that without the context of trial, the court is
unable to determine whether the evidence in question should be excluded.” Ind. Ins. Co.
v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004).
III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude All Testimony from the
Government’s Experts

In his first motion in limine, plaintiff asks that the Court exclude all testimony
from the government’s experts. Dkt. 27 (“Lewis MIL 1”). Plaintiff argues that the
government failed to disclose its experts before the July 1, 2016 cut-off, see dkt. 18, and
that the government did so by improperly characterizing all of its experts as “rebuttal”
experts subject to the August 19, 2016 rebuttal deadline. Lewis MIL 1 at 1. As a result,
plaintiff contends that he was not afforded the opportunity to designate rebuttal witnesses
of his own. Id. at 2.
In its opposition, dkt. 36 (“Gov’t Opp’n 1”), the government contends that each of
its experts witnesses will contradict or rebut evidence presented by plaintiff’s expert
disclosure, and, therefore, the government timely disclosed its witnesses by the rebuttal
expert cut-off. Id. at 1–3. The government also argues that disclosure of its experts at the
rebuttal cut-off was harmless because plaintiff had an opportunity to depose the
government’s rebuttal experts, but plaintiff did not depose them. Id. at 5.
CV-8354 (09/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-08354-CAS(ASx)

September 26, 2016

Title

KYLE ANTHONY LEWIS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish that the government’s experts
are not rebuttal experts. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 1 is DENIED without
prejudice, subject to a further showing at trial.
B.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Collateral Sources

In his second motion in limine, plaintiff asks the Court to exclude evidence as to
the reasonable value of medical services under the collateral source rule. Dkt. 28.
Plaintiff argues that the government should be precluded from admitting evidence
showing that a medical provider might gratuitously write off a portion of plaintiff’s bills
in the future. Id. at 3.
In its opposition, the government argues that the collateral source rule is not
implicated because the government does not plan to introduce evidence showing that
plaintiff received compensation for his injuries from an independent source (because
plaintiff has not received any collateral payments). Dkt. 38 at 1–2. Rather, the
government contends that it will show that the billed amounts for plaintiff’s care
exceeded the reasonable value of the medical services provided and that plaintiff’s
providers routinely accept less than what they billed to plaintiff. Id. at 1.
Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. The collateral source rule “does not address
the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in the first instance.” Howell v.
Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 257 P.3d 1130, 1143 (2011). Plaintiff does not allege
that he has received a collateral payment or that a medical provider has gratuitously
written off of a portion of his bills. Moreover, the amount of plaintiff’s damages remains
at issue in this case. Therefore, the government should not be precluded from presenting
evidence showing the reasonable value of the services rendered to plaintiff. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 2 is DENIED.
///
///
///

CV-8354 (09/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-cv-08354-CAS(ASx)

Title

KYLE ANTHONY LEWIS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
C.

Date

‘O’

September 26, 2016

Government’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert’s
Opinions Based on MRI Images

In its first motion in limine, the government asks the court to exclude plaintiff’s
expert’s opinions based on undisclosed MRI images. Dkt 29. The government argues
that plaintiff’s failure to disclose the MRI images prejudices the government. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff argues that he was never in possession of the MRI images and that the
government never specifically requested them in discovery. Dkt. 35 at 1. Plaintiff
further contends that, after the government first indicated it was having difficulty
obtaining the MRI images at the deposition of plaintiff’s expert on August 18, 2016,
plaintiff obtained and sent the MRI images to the government on September 1, 2016. Id.
Because the government now has access to the MRI images and will have had
access to them for more than four weeks before the start of the trial, the Court finds that
the initial lack of disclosure will not prejudice the government.1 Therefore, the
government’s motion in limine no. 1 is DENIED.
D.

Government’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Opinions about
Causation Contained in the Police Report

In its second motion in limine, the government asks the court to exclude opinions
about causation contained in the police report of the car accident giving rise to this case.
Dkt 30. The government argues that the officer who wrote the report did not witness the
accident and his opinions are therefore inadmissible hearsay. Id. at 1. The government
also contends that the officer’s conclusions are inadmissable expert opinion because
plaintiff did not disclose the officer as an expert witness and plaintiff has not shown the
officer is qualified to provide expert opinions about accident reconstruction. Id.

1

At oral argument, counsel for the United States acknowledged that it now has
possession of the MRI images, but indicated there was difficulty in opening one image.
The Court directs the parties to meet and confer to determine how best to provide defense
with this MRI image prior to trial.
CV-8354 (09/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-08354-CAS(ASx)

September 26, 2016

Title

KYLE ANTHONY LEWIS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, and the Court therefore GRANTS the
government’s unopposed motion in limine.
V.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part
plaintiff’s motions in limine, as set forth in this order. The Court DENIES in part and
GRANTS in part the government’s motions in limine, as set forth in this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-8354 (09/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

13

CMJ

Page 5 of 5