Spinnenweber v. Laducer et al

Filing 188

OPINION AND ORDER granting 168 Motion in Limine; granting 169 Motion in Limine; granting 170 Motion in Limine; granting 171 Motion in Limine; granting 172 Motion in Limine; granting 173 Motion in Limine; granting 174 Motion in Li mine; granting 175 Motion in Limine; granting 176 Motion in Limine; granting 177 Motion in Limine; granting 178 Motion in Limine; granting 179 Motion in Limine; granting 180 Motion in Limine; granting 183 Motion in Limine; granting 184 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 12/5/2019. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(smb) Modified on 12/6/2019 to correct document title and type (lhc).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
RICHARD SPINNENWEBER,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
ROBERT LADUCER and
)
RED RIVER SUPPLY INCORPORATED, )
Defendants.
)

CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CV-101-JEM

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a number of Motions in Limine [DE 168-180, 183, 184],
each filed as a separate motion by Defendants on November 6, 2019. Plaintiff has not responded
and the time to do so has passed. The Court notes that several other documents were titled Motions
in Limine but are more properly understood to be motions to exclude expert testimony, and will
be considered separately.
I.

Analysis
A motion in limine will be granted Aonly when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all

potential grounds.” Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Techs., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D.
Ill. 1993); see also Dartey v. Ford Motor Co., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ind. 2000). Most
evidentiary rulings will be resolved at trial in context, and this Aruling is subject to change when
the case unfolds.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-42 (1984). The Court considers each
request in turn.
A. Lay Opinions as to Medical Causation [DE 168]
Defendants request that the Court exclude lay witnesses from testifying as to
medical diagnoses, causes and effects of injuries, and other matters of medical science
1

excluded as a lay person lacks the requisite training and knowledge to provide this type
of testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 701. Plaintiff has made no objection to this request, and
it is therefore granted.
B. Lay Testimony Regarding Injuries or Conditions Unsupported by Expert Testimony
[DE 169]
Defendants request that the Court exclude testimony of injuries or physical
conditions for which an admissible expert has not expressed an opinion regarding the
cause of that injury or condition. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 701. Plaintiff has not
objected. Accordingly, no lay witness may testify at trial regarding injuries or
symptoms of injuries that are not connected to the accident by expert testimony.
C. Statements Regarding Punishing Defendants [DE 170]
Defendants move for Plaintiff to be excluded from arguing that a jury verdict would
or should punish or send a message to Defendants or society at large, since no punitive
damages are being sought. Since a request for damages to send a message beyond
making Plaintiff whole is inappropriate in a case for only compensatory damages, the
request is granted. See Betts v. City of Chicago, 784 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1033 (N.D. Ill.
2011) (“Given that compensatory damages are limited to actual losses, this court agrees
that [the plaintiff]’s argument that the jury should ‘send a message’ is a punitive
damages argument.”).
D. Reference to Liability Insurance [DE 171]
Defendants request that the Court exclude any reference to liability insurance. See
Fed. R. Evid. 411. The request is granted and any mention of whether Defendants were
2

insured is precluded.
E. Reference to Prior Settlement Negotiations [DE 172]
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408, any reference to settlement negotiations
or statements made about the case during those negotiations is excluded.
F. Testimony of Statements Made by Healthcare Professionals [DE 173]
Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from testifying as to what he was told by
non-testifying healthcare professionals. Hearsay, which is defined as a declarant’s outof-court statement that a “party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted in the statement,” Fed. R. Evid. 801(a), (c), is not admissible unless allowed
by statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules created by the United States
Supreme Court. See Fed. R. Evid. 802. To the extent that the out of court statements of
non-testifying healthcare professionals are inadmissible hearsay, they are excluded.
G. Reference to Previous Trial and Motions [DE 174]
Reference to the previous trial and to the outcome or filing of any previous motions,
including this one, are excluded.
H. “Golden Rule” Arguments [DE 175]
Invitations for the jury to place itself in Plaintiff’s shoes are improper and therefore
excluded. See, e.g., Thomas v. Ritz, No. 3:15-CV-108-RJD, 2018 WL 1784473, at *4
(S.D. Ill. Apr. 13, 2018) (“A ‘golden rule’ argument is ‘one which the jury is asked to
put itself in the plaintiff's position’” and is “improper.”) (quoting Spray-Rite Serv.
Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 684 F.2d 1226, 1246 (7th Cir. 1982)).

3

I. Reference to Defendant’s Corporate Status [DE 176]
Reference to Defendant Red River Supply as a trucking company or its status as
corporation is excluded to the extent that it is likely to be prejudicial.
J. Reference to Parties’ Financial Status [DE 177]
Defendants move for the Court to preclude reference to any of the parties’ financial
situation, since financial status is irrelevant to the determination of liability or damages.
Plaintiff does not object, and the request is granted.
K. Reference to Uncalled Witnesses [DE 178]
Comments regarding the failure of Defendants to call any particular witness are
excluded.
L. Untimely Disclosed Witnesses, Exhibits, or Contentions [DE 179]
Defendants request that the Court preclude any witness, exhibit, or contention not
previously disclosed to Defendants from testifying or being presented during trial.
Undisclosed information and witnesses will not be permitted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)
(“If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a)
or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on
a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is
harmless.”).
M. Reference to Prior Allegations, Claims, Lawsuits, or Complaints Against Defendants
[DE 180]
Reference to unrelated and dissimilar accidents, claims, or lawsuits involving
Defendants is precluded.
4

N. Testimony of Certain Lay Witnesses [DE 183]
Defendants move to exclude the testimony of eight lay witnesses regarding the
alleged effects of the accident on Plaintiff because no expert testimony establishes that
the effects were caused by the accident. To the extent that the testimony relates to
medical conditions or injuries about which there is no expert testimony to establish
causation, that testimony is excluded. Only lay testimony addressing personal
knowledge of the witness is permitted. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 701, 702, 802.
O. Testimony Regarding Statements or Opinions in Medical Records [DE 184]
Defendants move to exclude as inadmissible hearsay any expressions of opinion
contained in the plaintiff’s medical records that relate to the issue of causation.
Although statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment are generally exceptions
to the rule against hearsay, the rule only excepts statements “made for – and . . .
reasonably pertinent to – medical diagnosis or treatment” or that “describe[] medical
history.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(4). Accordingly, statements about causation in the medical
records that are not excepted by Rule 803(4) are excluded.
II.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motions in Limine [DE 168-

180, 183, and 184], as described above.
So ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2019.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

All counsel of record

5