Leftridge v. Speedway LLC

Filing 43

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's 39 Motion in Limine. Plaintiff is REMINDED that [i]n a diversity case, a federal court applies federal procedural but state substantive law.. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 10/31/2019. (jss)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
TAYELL LEFTRIDGE,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
SPEEDWAY LLC,
Defendant.

CAUSE NO.: 2:18-CV-66-JEM

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine [DE 39], filed October 9,
2019. No response has been filed and the time to do so has passed.
I.

Analysis
A motion in limine will be granted “only 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 “ruling 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.

Mere Accident Defense

Plaintiff requests that the Court exclude any argument, testimony, or evidence that the
occurrence in question was a “simple accident” or “mere accident.” However, all of the cases he
cites deal with jury instructions used in state court cases. Baptist v. Ford Motor Co., No. 13 C 8974,
2018 WL 1519153, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2018) (“a federal court sitting in diversity must instruct
a jury on the proper elements of a cause of action under the appropriate state substantive law, but

1

the court is not required to follow state ‘pattern’ instructions”) (citing Platis v. Stockwell, 630 F.2d
1202, 1207 (7th Cir. 1980)). Plaintiff may raise any concerns with jury instructions at the
appropriate time, but it is not apparent from the instant Motion what type of evidence or testimony
Plaintiff seeks to have excluded from trial. Plaintiff is assured that Defendant will be barred from
introducing evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of prejudice. Fed. R. Evid.
401.
B.

Prior Arrest

Plaintiff requests that any testimony, evidence, or argument regarding Plaintiff’s past charges
or convictions of crimes be excluded, absent a pre-trial showing of admissibility. The Court notes
that Plaintiff refers only to the Indiana Rules of Evidence, which are not operable in this Federal
Court, but agrees that evidence of prior criminal history or prior bad acts is generally excluded. See
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
C.

Mitigation of Damages

Plaintiff requests that Defendant be precluded from arguing that Plaintiff failed to mitigate
his damages because Defendant has not produced expert testimony that Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate
was the cause of specific and increased injury. Defendant has made no objection to this request, and
it is therefore granted.
D.

Non-Party Defense

Plaintiff requests that the Court bar Defendant from presenting any non-party defense. The
Court agrees that no non-party defense has been identified in Defendant’s answer or otherwise
raised, and Defendant is therefore precluded from presenting as a defense that another party is at
fault.

2

E.

Surveillance Video

Plaintiff moves for an order barring evidence of surveillance video, photographs, or
statements of Plaintiff since none were disclosed in the course of discovery. 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.”).
F.

Separation of Witnesses

Plaintiff requests a separation of witnesses. Although a request for separation of witnesses
is not properly brought as part of a motion in limine, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 615, “At
a party’s request, the court must order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’
testimony.” Accordingly, all non-party witnesses shall remain outside the courtroom during the
course of the trial so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.
G.

Motion in Limine

Plaintiff asks that the Court exclude all mention of the instant Motion or the instant Order,
or otherwise infer that Plaintiff has moved to prohibit proof or that the Court has excluded proof of
any particular manner, and Defendant has not objected. Accordingly, no reference shall be made to
the jury regarding Plaintiff’s motion in limine, its contents, or the instant ruling.
H.

Insurance

Plaintiff moves for the exclusion of evidence, testimony, or argument regarding payment of
Plaintiff’s medical bills by an insurance carrier. There is no objection, and the Court precludes
mention of Plaintiff’s insurance.

3

II.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine [DE 39]

as described above.
Plaintiff is REMINDED that “[i]n a diversity case, a federal court applies federal procedural
but state substantive law.” Bourke v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 159 F.3d 1032, 1036 (7th Cir. 1998)
(citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)).
So ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2019.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

All counsel of record

4