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

Filing 141

ORDER regarding 124 Motion in Limine. See Order for details. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 11/5/15. (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 defendants’ motions in limine to exclude: (1)
post-accident and autopsy photographs of Hasib Karahodzic; (2) all evidence and
testimony constituting legal conclusions about Thompson’s operation of his
vehicle at the time of the accident; (3) all evidence and testimony regarding
medications Thompson may have been taking at the time of the collision; (4) all
evidence and testimony regarding JBS’ internal policies and procedures; (5) all
evidence and testimony regarding Thompson’s Workers’ Compensation claim and
subsequent settlement with JBS; (6) all evidence and trial testimony regarding
audits of JBS and the Federal Motor Carrier Administration’s JBS SAFER profile,
or other similar documents assessing JBS’ operations; (7) any evidence related to
claims and legal theories not set forth in the pleadings; (8) any discussion,
evidence, or testimony concerning Edina Karahodzic’s allegations that she
suffered from depression and attempted suicide as a result of Hasib Karahodzic’s
Page 1 of 13

death; (9) any discussion, evidence, or testimony related to the size of JBS, its
wealth, or its corporate status; (10) any discussion, evidence, or testimony
concerning the traffic citation issued to Thompson and dismissed by the State’s
Attorney; and (11) any discussion, evidence, or testimony related to the initial
claim brought by JBS against decedent’s estate and EJA Trucking and its
subsequent settlement (Doc. 124).
a.

Defendants’ Requests for Exclusion of Specific Evidence
Defendants seek preclusion of specific evidence and barring of specific

testimony 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. Defendants’ First Motion i n Limine to Exclude the Admission and
Publication of Post-Accident and Autopsy Photographs of Plaintiffs’
Decedent
Defendants request an Order excluding the photographs taken of Plaintiffs’
decedent, Hasib Karahodzic, at the scene of the accident and during his autopsy.
Page 2 of 13

Defendants argue that the photographs are both gruesome and inflammatory in
nature, in addition to being unnecessary to prove the facts at issue. Furthermore,
defendants argue that the probative value of the photographs is heavily
outweighed by their prejudicial effects, especially given the fact that defendants do
not object to descriptive testimony regarding the state of Hasib Karahodzic’s
remains provided by Edin Karahodzic and his family members.
In response, Plaintiffs argue that the purpose of the photographs is to offer
a visual depiction of the scene observed by Edin Karahodzic at the time of his
father’s death (Doc. 134) Plaintiff goes on to argue that Edin has both a claim for
the wrongful death of his father and a claim for negligent infliction of emotional
distress in attempting to rescue him. Relevant to Edin’s emotional distress claim,
both Dr. Wolfgram and Dr. Smith diagnosed him with Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) resulting from the sight of his father’s body following the crash.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion, as the entire group of
photographs prove to be more prejudicial than probative to the defendant.
However, because the photographs are relevant to the subject of damages,
Plaintiffs may select one photograph to submit for the Court’s approval for use
during trial.
2. Defendants’ Second Motion i n Limine to Exclude All Evidence and
Testimony Constituting Legal Conclusions about Thompson’s Operation
of his Vehicle at the Time of the Accident
Defendants next request an Order excluding “all evidence and testimony
constituting legal conclusions about Thompson’s merger and rate of speed at the
Page 3 of 13

time of the collision, extending to counsel and lay witnesses…” (Doc. 124).
Defendants argue that based on the Court’s previous Daubert ruling that excluded
Plaintiffs’ proposed expert testimony concerning Orenthio Thompson’s violations
of Illinois traffic laws, Plaintiff may now seek to introduce evidence or make
arguments alluding to state law violations. Defendants believe that such evidence
is both barred by Rule 702 and would be unfairly prejudicial.
In response, plaintiff argues that various experts will offer opinions that do
not specify that Thompson expressly violated Illinois law and will comply with the
Court’s previous Order. Their opinions will discuss Thompson’s conduct and
opinions in relation to said conduct on the date of the accident, but without
mention of statutory violations. Additionally, plaintiffs argue that Rule 702 does
not prevent Mr. Thompson from explaining “his slow speed and his failure to use
a left hand blinker when changing lanes from the shoulder to the right hand travel
lane”.
With respect to Defendants’ second motion in limine, the Court agrees with
plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ experts shall be permitted to offer testimony and
opinions using the facts of the case, including those relevant to driver conduct, to
assist the trier of fact. However, as previously stated, experts may not opine as to
whether Thompson’s actions violated the Illinois’ statutes governing merging
traffic (625 ILCS 5/11-905) and minimum speed regulations (625 ILCS 5/11-606).
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

Page 4 of 13

3. Defendants’ Third Motion i n Limine to Exclude All Evidence and
Testimony Regarding Any Medications Identified in Thompson’s Lab
Reports
Defendants’ third motion seeks exclusion of all evidence and testimony
regarding medications Thompson may have taken prior to the accident, or was
administered following the collision. Specifically, defendants argue that Plaintiffs
failed to provide any timely disclosure of expert opinions that Thompson’s
medications contributed to cause the collision. Additionally they argue that the
detection of morphine in Thompson’s urinalysis would be misleading to the jury,
and, thus prejudicial, as morphine was administered as part of Thompson’s postaccident medical treatment for injuries.
In response, Plaintiffs argue that the influence of morphine and its effects
may have impacted Thompson’s account of the accident. Specifically, plaintiffs
argue that “[t]he administration and influence of morphine to Mr. Thompson is
clearly relevant, in that many of the post-accident statements given by Mr.
Thompson, in medical records, and in writing in the police report, may have been
inaccurate as a result of Mr. Thompson being under the influence of morphine”
(Doc. 134).
With respect to Defendants’ third motion in limine, the Court agrees with
plaintiffs’ counsel. Therefore, based on its relevance to the issue of accuracy of
Thompson’s statements following the accident, the Court DENIES Defendants’
motion in limine to exclude any reference to medications Thompson may have
taken prior to, or was administered following, the accident.

Page 5 of 13

4. Defendants’ Fourth Motion i n Limine to Exclude All Evidence and
Testimony Regarding JBS’ Accident Review Procedures
Defendants’ fourth motion seeks exclusion of all evidence and testimony
regarding JBS Carriers, Inc.’s internal policies and procedures. Specifically, they
seek to bar Plaintiffs from arguing or suggesting that Thompson and JBS Carriers
did not comply with JBS’ policies, including its “Driver Accident Reporting
Procedures” and the “Accident Review Committee”. Defendants argue that the
Accident Review Committee does not apply the level of scrutiny when reviewing
accidents as that utilized by this Court, and therefore the evidence is both
irrelevant and misleading to the jury.
In response, plaintiffs argue that JBS Carrier’s failure to follow its own
internal procedures, by failing to convene the Accident Review Committee to
review the accident at issue, exhibits a failure to take subsequent remedial
measures.
As both parties note, the Accident Review Committee did not review the
accident in the case at issue. Additionally, the Committee applies a different
standard than that utilized by the Court to determine negligence in this case.
Specifically, the preventability standard utilized by JBS Carriers is not one solely
based on a legal liability determination (Doc. 124, Exhibit F). The Court finds that
JBS’ procedures subsequent to an accident, including its “Driver Accident
Reporting Procedures” and the “Accident Review Committee, fail to add anything
of relevance to issues fact to be found by the jury in this case. Therefore, the
Court GRANTS defendants’ motion in limine.
Page 6 of 13

5. Defendants’ Fifth Motion i n Limine to Exclude all Evidence and
Testimony Regarding Thompson’s Workers’ Compensation Claim and
its Resolution
Defendants’ fifth motion seeks exclusion of all evidence and testimony
regarding Thompson’s Workers’ Compensation claim and subsequent settlement
with JBS Trucking. Specifically, Defendants wish to bar any attempt by Plaintiffs
to seek admission of the General Release into evidence or mention Thompson’s
Workers’ Compensation claim that he made following the accident at issue.
Defendants argue that by allowing Plaintiff to inquire about Thompson’s
resignation or his workers’ compensation claim, it may create an impression in
the mind of the jury that JBS determined Thompson to be at fault for the
accident, and JBS terminated him as a result.
Plaintiffs counter arguing that the compensation claim and settlement are
relevant because the General Release related to the Workers’ Compensation claim
and shows that Thompson was misled when signing the settlement documents
with JBS. Plaintiff argues JBS’ policy allegedly initiates settlement but makes it so
employees who are in accidents, such as Thompson, may not continue working
for the company.
Plaintiffs’ position regarding Thompson’s inability to continue as a JBS
employee following an accident would allow for the jury to speculate as to whether
Thompson was fired from JBS Carriers. Therefore, Defendants’ motion will be
granted. Even if Thompson did not understand the release and associated

Page 7 of 13

paperwork, nothing states that he was fired from JBS Carriers. Accordingly,
Defendants’ motion in limine is GRANTED.
6. Defendants’ Sixth Motion i n Limine to Exclude all Evidence and
Testimony Regarding Audits of JBS and the Federal Motor Carrier
Administration’s JBS SAFER Profile or Other Similar Documents
Assessing JBS’ Operation
Defendants’ sixth motion seeks exclusion of all documentary evidence and
trial testimony regarding audits of JBS Trucking and the Federal Motor Carrier
Administration’s (FMCA) JBS Trucking SAFER profile or other similar
documents assessing JBS’ operations Specifically, defendants wish to exclude all
documents and testimony discussing Department of Transportation (DOT) audits
and the associated press release, any resulting citations, and any subsequent
remedial measures agreed to by JBS in the settlement with the DOT. Defendants
contend that any evidence regarding the audit is both irrelevant and prejudicial.
Plaintiffs counter by arguing that the SAFER profile is relevant in this case
because Thompson improperly logged his time into the electronic log, despite
having been trained on the system. Specifically, Plaintiffs highlight that Thompson
stated his belied was that he could input “off duty” or “on duty” into the machine,
and either would be correct prior to the accident. (Doc. 134-1, p.129).
However, with respect to Defendants’ sixth motion in limine, the Court
agrees with Defendant’s counsel. Thompson’s misunderstanding of his tracking
does not make relevant all evidence of why JBS Trucking installed the electronic
onboard recorders on its trucks, or the circumstances underlying FMCA initiating
their installation. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion in limine is GRANTED.
Page 8 of 13

7. Defendants’ Seventh Motion i n Limine to Exclude Reference to Any
Claims Not Included in the Pleadings
Defendants’ seventh motion seeks to bar Plaintiffs from presenting evidence
on any theory of recovery not alleged in the pleadings. Plaintiffs counter arguing
that they should be allowed to advance any theory supported by the evidence,
since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require fact pleading.
Plaintiffs shall be limited to those issues set forth in the final pretrial
conference order. Therefore, it is ordered that Defendants’ motion in limine
seeking to exclude reference to claims not included in the pleadings is DENIED.
8. Defendants’ Eighth Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Information,
Reference to, or Evidence of Edina Karahodzic’s Alleged Depression or
Suicide Attempt
Defendants’ eighth motion seeks to bar Plaintiffs from presenting evidence,
testimony, or making mention Edina Karahodzic’s alleged depression and suicide
attempt following Hasib Karahodzic’s death. Defendants contend that Edina’s
suicide attempt is not relevant to the underlying claim, and even if the Court finds
that it is, the alleged suicide attempt is unfairly prejudicial based on Edina’s lack
of diagnosis and treatment from a health care provider. In further support of their
argument, Defendants argue that the plaintiffs have not disclosed an expert to
opine and establish a causal connection between the accident that resulted in
Hasib’s death and the attempted suicide.
Plaintiffs argue that Edina’s suicide attempt is relevant to establishing her
claim for damages pursuant to Illinois’ Wrongful Death Act, 740 ILCS 180/2.
Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that this case is similar to People v. Hudson, 886
Page 9 of 13

N.E.2d 964 (Ill. 2008), where the Illinois Supreme Court held that expert
testimony was not necessary in the case of a home invasion victim, because the
circumstances were such that the jury could have reasonably found that the
events generated the emotional distress. Additionally, there was testimony about
the plaintiff’s behavior and emotional state following the home invasion. Hudson,
886 N.E.2d at 973. Plaintiffs indicate that in this case, all the facts surrounding
Edina’s depression and attempted suicide indicate that her depression and
suicide attempt arise from her father’s death and the nightmares arising from her
seeing his burned body. Plaintiffs also plan to produce testimony about the
Edina’s depression and suicide attempt following her father’s death.
Therefore, assuming that plaintiff can lay the proper foundation set out in
their response to the motion in limine, the evidence will be allowed. As a result,
Defendants’ motion in limine is DENIED.
9. Defendants’ Ninth Motion i n Limine to Exclude Any Information,
Reference to, or Evidence of Defendants’ Size, Wealth, or Corporate
Status
Defendants’ ninth motion seeks to bar plaintiffs from “presenting any
mention, evidence, or testimony during voir dire, opening statement, Plaintiffs’
case, rebuttal, closing argument, or any other portion of this trial, which is in any
way related to the size of JBS, its net worth, any valuation, earnings, profits,
wealth, assets or any other index of the economic or financial condition of JBS”
(Doc. 124). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs seek only compensatory damages in
this case, and therefore any evidence concerning the size of JBS Trucking and its
Page 10 of 13

economic condition is irrelevant to the underlying claim and would be unfairly
prejudicial.
Plaintiffs, in response, concede that they will not discuss the net worth and
wealth of JBS Carriers. However, Plaintiffs argue that the size and corporate
status of JBS Carriers is relevant based on JBS’ utilization of administrative staff
to control hiring and training of drivers, driver locations, logs, and accident
reporting.
Based on Plaintiffs’ concession to not discuss the net worth and wealth of
JBS Carriers, the motion in limine is GRANTED as to net worth, corporate
earnings, and profits of JBS Carriers. However, the motion is DENIED as to the
size of JBS, namely the number of drivers and trucks employed by JBS, as that
information could be relevant at trial, and thus shall not be excluded on motion in

limine. Therefore, Defendants’ motion in limine is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
10. Defendants’ Tenth Motion i n Limine to Exclude Any Information,
Reference to, or Documentation of the Traffic Citation Issued to
Thompson and Dismissed by the State’s Attorney’s Office
Defendants’ tenth motion in limine seeks to bar Plaintiffs from “presenting
any mention, evidence, or testimony during voir dire, opening statement,
Plaintiffs’ case, rebuttal, closing argument, or any other portion of this trial, which
is in any way related to a traffic citation that was issued to Thompson following
the commercial motor vehicle accident, since it was eventually dismissed by the
State’s Attorney pursuant to a Motion to Nolle Prosequi” (Doc. 124). Defendants
Page 11 of 13

argue that evidence of the citation is unfairly prejudicial and not relevant to the
underlying claim, since the citation was dismissed without being proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Because Plaintiffs filed no response, and therefore seemingly do not object
to Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude this evidence, Defendants’ motion in
limine to exclude reference to, or documentation of the traffic citation issued to
Thompson and subsequently dismissed by the State’s Attorney’s Office is
GRANTED.
11. Defendants’ Eleventh Motion i n Limine to Exclude Any Information,
Reference to, or Documentation of the Initial Claim Brought by JBS
Against Decedent’s Estate and EJA Trucking and Subsequent
Settlement
Defendants’ final motion seeks to bar Plaintiffs from “presenting any
mention, evidence, or testimony during voir dire, opening statement, Plaintiffs’
case, rebuttal, closing argument, or any other portion of this trial, which is in any
way related to the fact that JBS initially brought negligence claims against
Decedent’s estate and its subsequent settlement, resulting in a realignment of the
parties/caption” (Doc. 124). Defendants argue that that evidence and testimony
concerning the initial claims brought by JBS Carriers are irrelevant under F.R.E.
401 and should be deemed inadmissible. Specifically, Defendants cite to the
jointly filed December 9, 2013 motion to re-align the parties to this action (Doc.
62), which the Court subsequently granted following the confidential settlement
agreement (Doc.63). Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs willingly partook
in petitioning the Court for realignment of the parties in order to reflect the true
Page 12 of 13

interests of this litigation. Moreover, Defendants argue that the initial claims
brought by JBS are not relevant to the underlying claim of this litigation.
Plaintiffs,

in

response,

contend

that

upon

their

reading

of

the

aforementioned settlement agreement, the agreement allows for discussion of the
fact that JBS was a plaintiff prior to the realignment, and JBS filed a lawsuit
against EJA Trucking and Edin Karahodzic in his representative capacity.
With respect to Defendants’ final in limine request, the Court agrees with
Defendants’ counsel that the evidence of settlement of other claims is irrelevant.
Therefore, the motion in limine is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 5th day of November, 2015.

Digitally signed
by Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2015.11.05
10:39:33 -06'00'

United States District Court Judge

Page 13 of 13