JBS Carriers, Inc. v. EJA Trucking, Inc. et al

Filing 140

ORDER, denying 110 MOTION in Limine to exclude reference to any alleged Federal motor Carrier Safety Regulation Violations by Hasib Karahodzic or EJA Trucking prior to or in connection with the March 17, 2012 Collision filed by Edin Kara hodzic, granting 112 MOTION in Limine to exclude any reference to any alleged federal motor carrier safety regulation violations by Edin Karahodzic prior to or on March 17, 2012 filed by Edin Karahodzic,denying 114 MOTION in Limine to exclude reference to any party's (including Hasib Karahozic's) religious affiliation filed by Edin Karahodzic, denying 116 MOTION in Limine to exclude any evidence of Hasib Karahodzic's alleged fatigue being similar to the same as having any level of Blood Alcohol Concentration filed by Edin Karahodzic, denying 118 MOTION in Limine to exclude reference to any information, refernce to, ordocumentation of John Gobelbecker's Night Time Video Stud y filed by Edin Karahodzic, denying 120 MOTION in Limine to exclude reference to any information, reference to, or documentation of Dan Witta's Lane Change Study used in John Gobelbecker's Report filed by Edin Karahodzic, denying 122 MOTION in Limine to exclude any information, reference to, or documentation of faigue filed by Edin Karahodzic. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/19/15. (lmp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EDIN KARAHODZIC and
EDIN KARAHODZIC, as
Personal representative of the
Estate of HASIB KARAHODZIC
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JBS CARRIERS INC. and ORENTIO
THOMPSON,

Case No. 12-cv-1040-DRH

Defendants.
ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are plaintiffs’ motions in limine to exclude
improper evidence and argument relating to: (1) any reference to Hasib
Karahodzic’s or EJA Trucking’s alleged violation of the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations prior to or in connection with the March 17, 2012 collision
(Doc. 110); (2) any reference to Edin Karahodzic’s alleged violation of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations prior to or in connection with the March 17,
2012 (Doc. 112); (3) any reference to any party’s religious affiliation (Doc. 114);
(4) any reference to Hasib Karahodzic’s alleged fatigue being similar to or the
same as having any level of blood alcohol concentration (Doc 116); (5) any
reference to information or documentation of John Gobelbecker’s nighttime video
study (Doc 118); (6) any reference to information or documentation of Dan Witta’s

Page 1 of 9

lane change study used in John Gobelbecker’s report (Doc 120); (7) any reference
to information or documentation of fatigue (Doc. 122).
a.

Plaintiff’s Requests for Exclusion of Specific Evidence
Plaintiff seeks preclusion of specific evidence pursuant to FEDERAL

RULES OF EVIDENCE 401, 402, and 403. Rule 401 holds evidence is relevant if
it “has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence.”

FED. R. EVID. 401.

Further, relevant evidence is

admissible unless a binding rule holds otherwise, while irrelevant evidence is
inadmissible. See FED. R. EVID. 402. Lastly, “[t]he court may exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or
more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” FED.
R. EVID. 403.
The Court hereby finds as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s First Motion i n Limine to Exclude Reference to Any Alleged
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation Violations by Hasib Karahodzic or
EJA Trucking prior to or in connection with the March 17, 2012 collision
(Doc. 110)
Plaintiffs request an Order prohibiting defense counsel and/or their
witnesses from making reference to alleged Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulation violations on the part of Hasib Karahodzic or EJA Trucking in this
case.

Page 2 of 9

In response, Defendants argue that the purpose of said evidence is to
establish that Hasib Karahodzic was fatigued at the time of the accident, and that
the fatigue was the cause of the accident at issue (Doc. 133). Defendants go on to
clarify that they “will not be specifically arguing that Decedent “violated the

Federal Hours of Service Regulations; but rather, will provide the jury with all of
the necessary information it may need in order to reach its own determinations.”
(Id. at 3). Consistent with this Court’s previous ruling (Doc. 106) and in keeping
with defendant’s proffer regarding how they intend to use the evidence, the Court
DENIES the motion.
2. Plaintiff’s Second Motion i n Limine to Exclude Reference to Any Alleged
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation Violations by Edin Karahodzic prior
to or in connection with the March 17, 2012 collision (Doc. 112)
Plaintiffs request an Order prohibiting defense counsel and/or their
witnesses from making reference to alleged Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulation violations on the part of Edin Karahodzic in this case, arguing that the
evidence is not relevant to the issues in this case, given Edin’s role as a eyewitness
who came upon the scene after the accident occurred. Additionally, plaintiffs
argue that any expert testimony regarding alleged hours of service regulations is
inadmissible. See Good Shepard, 323 F.3d at 564 (held expert testimony that
included

“conclusions

that

the

[defendants]

Amendments Act]” was properly excluded).

Page 3 of 9

violated

the

[Fair

Housing

In response, Defendants argue that the purpose of said evidence is not to
offer opinions relative to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation violations, but
instead to examine Edin’s perception and recollection of the events that occurred
immediately following the accident. Defendants propose this information to be
used during Defendant’s cross examination relevant to Edin’s state of mind
following the accident. Defendants argue that it is relevant with regard to the
conversations he recalled having with Thompson and first responders at the
accident scene, as well as his ability to remember Thompson’s actions
immediately following the accident.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants may refer to Edin’s books and
log records to determine the amount of time he had been driving in order to
explore the issue of his fatigue. However, this shall be done without reference to
the hours of service regulations. Edin’s fatigue and ability to perceive and observe
the events following the accident are at issue in this case, but his culpability per
the regulations is not. Therefore Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s Third Motion i n Limine to Exclude Reference to Any Party’s
(including Hasib Karahodzic’s) Religions Affiliation (Doc. 114)
Plaintiffs seek to bar defense counsel and/or their witnesses from making
reference to any party’s religious affiliation, including that of Hasib Karahodzic, in
this case. Specifically, plaintiffs request that no mention of the Karahodzic
family’s affiliation to the Islamic faith be permitted, arguing that it is not relevant
to the underlying issues of this case.

Page 4 of 9

In response, Defendants argue that plaintiffs have injected their religious
and ethnic background into this case through the proposed expert testimony and
exhibits describing the grief of the family, support from the local mosque, and the
family’s unique experiences resulting from their religious affiliation. Specifically,
defendants propose exploration of any potential juror bias during voir dire.
Plaintiff injected religion into the case through the exhibits, depositions,
and expert testimony of Dr. Edwin Wolfgram. Therefore, defendants may explore
plaintiff's religion during voir dire in order to examine for potential bias. See e.g.,

United States v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340, 368 (7th Cir. 1972)(“At a minimum,
when requested by counsel, inquiry must be made into matters where the
likelihood of prejudice is so great that not to inquire would risk failure in
assembling an impartial jury.”) Accordingly, based on the introduction of religion
into the case thus far, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion in limine.
4. Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion i n Limine to Exclude Any Reference to Hasib
Karahodzic’s Alleged Fatigue Being Similar to or the Same as having any
Level of Blood Alcohol Concentration (Doc. 116)
Plaintiffs next seek to bar reference to any discussion of Hasib Karahodzic’s
alleged fatigue on the date of the accident being likened to a specific blood alcohol
concentration. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that because Hasib Karahozic had no
alcohol in his post mortem toxicology screen, Human Factors expert Dennis Wylie
should be prohibited from comparing Hasib’s level of fatigue to that equivalent of
a blood alcohol concentration of .04% due to the alleged prejudicial effects.

Page 5 of 9

However, as the Court previously noted in its Daubert ruling, Wylie’s
likeness of fatigue levels to alcohol intoxication cites to seven different published
and peer-reviewed studies. Each study notes proper methodology and reliability
accepted in the field as the basis of such a comparison (Doc. 103-2).
Furthermore, the Court previously held Wylie’s testimony about driver fatigue
aids the trier of fact. Wylie will provide testimony regarding the reconstruction of
Karahodzic’s routes and his level of fatigue, which is “something more than what
is ‘obvious to the layperson.” Dhillon v. Crown Controls Corp., 269 F.3d 865, 871
(7th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding Wylie’s methods and comparison of
Hasib’s level of fatigue to that equivalent of a blood alcohol concentration are a
matter of his expert testimony and proper subjects for cross-examination. See

Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc., 689 F.3d 802, 805 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S.
at 596.). Thus, references to Hasib Karahodzic’s fatigue likened to a particular
blood alcohol concentration are admissible and the Court DENIES plaintiff’s
motion in limine.
5. Plaintiff’s Fifth Motion i n Limine to Exclude Reference to Any Information,
Reference to, or Documentation of John Goebelbecker’s Nighttime Video
Study (Doc. 118)
Plaintiffs next seek to bar reference to, or documentation of, John
Goebelbecker’s Nighttime Video Study arguing that the conditions are not
substantially similar to those at the time of the collision. Defendants counter
highlighting this Court’s previous order relevant to the reliability and admissibility
of the Goebelbecker’s methodology and study (Doc. 106). Defendants argue that

Page 6 of 9

the study is used to illustrate various principles Goebelbecker relied on in
forming his opinion, not to recreate the events of the night in question (Doc. 131).
The Court previously quoted that “[Seventh Circuit] case law has recognized
that experts in various fields may rely properly on a wide variety of sources and
may employ a similarly wide choice of methodologies in developing an expert
opinion.” Cooper v. Nelson, 211 F.3d 1008, 1020 (7th Cir.2000). “Plaintiffs’
criticisms of Goebelbecker’s methods are proper subjects for cross-examination.

Walker v. Soo Line R.R., 208 F.3d 581, 591 (7th Cir.2000) (indicating that a
failure to consider evidence or flaw in the study are appropriate for cross
examination).” (Doc. 106). Therefore, based on the Court’s previous order, in
interest of consistency, plaintiff’s motion in limine is DENIED. “Any attack by
plaintiffs as to the weight of Goebelbecker’s testimony and opinions is a subject
appropriate for cross examination.” (Doc. 106)
6. Plaintiff’s Sixth Motion i n Limine to Exclude Reference to Any
Information, Reference to, or Documentation of Dan Witta’s Lane Change
Study Used in John Goebelbecker’s Report (Doc. 120)
Plaintiffs next seek to bar reference to, or documentation of, Dan Witta’s
lateral movement test that is referenced in John Goebelbecker’s report.
Specifically, plaintiffs argue that it may mislead the jury stating that it is
inaccurate given the conditions of Thompson’s lane change. In response, the
defendants highlight the Court’s previous ruling on this matter and reiterate that
the lateral movement test was utilized to refute plaintiffs’ theory that Thompson’s
truck “darted out” in front of Hasib Karahodzic.
Page 7 of 9

The Court previously stated:
“Plaintiff also attacks the methodology and use of the lateral
movement test performed by Dan Wiita, alleging that “its method is
totally dissimilar from the facts of the case” (Doc. 88). Defendant argues
that the lateral movement test was utilized to refute plaintiffs’ theory
that Thompson’s truck “darted out” in from of Karahodzic’s truck,
leaving Karahodzic without time to brake. Defendants note that a large
portion of Goebelbecker’s opinion was based on his extensive
experience in accident reconstruction (Doc. 104). Plaintiff discussed the
weight discrepancy of the vehicle used in the study in great detail, which
defendant argues is an appropriate topic for cross-examination, as it
goes to the weight of the evidence not admissibility. The court agrees.”
(Doc. 106)
As the court incorporates by reference its findings from its previous ruling (Doc.
106), the Court remains consistent and DENIES the motion.
7. Plaintiff’s Seventh Motion i n Limine to Exclude Reference to Any
Information, Reference to, or Documentation of Fatigue (Doc. 122)
Plaintiffs next seek to bar reference to, or documentation of, fatigue.
Specifically, plaintiff mentions defense experts John Goebelbecker and Dennis
Wylie and portions of their reports and proposed testimony related to fatigue.
Defendants counter arguing that the issue of fatigue is central to this case and
pertinent to the “actions or inactions by [Decedent that] proximately cause the
accident”. Furthermore, the defendants once again highlight the Court’s previous
ruling regarding Goebelbecker and Wylie’s expert reports (Doc. 106).
The Court previously held both Goebelbecker and Wylie’s opinions expressed
in their report are admissible under Rule 702 and Daubert. The Court went on to
state that plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the experts’ methods and conclusions,
including those concerning Wylie’s failure to account for caffeine, are proper
subjects for cross-examination. This Court’s previous order specifically referenced
Page 8 of 9

that “[Seventh Circuit] case law has recognized that experts in various fields may
rely properly on a wide variety of sources and may employ a similarly wide choice
of methodologies in developing an expert opinion.” Cooper v. Nelson, 211 F.3d
1008, 1020 (7th Cir.2000). Hence, plaintiffs’ criticisms of Goebelbecker and
Wylie’s methods relative to their fatigue analyses are proper subjects for crossexamination. See Walker v. Soo Line R.R., 208 F.3d 581, 591 (7th Cir.2000)
(indicating that a failure to consider evidence or flaw in the study is appropriate
for cross examination). Therefore, consistent with this Court’s previous ruling
(Doc. 106), the Court DENIES the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 19th day of October, 2015.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R. Herndon
Date: 2015.10.19
13:25:40 -05'00'
United States District Court Judge

Page 9 of 9