Estate of Alexander Ramos Leal et al v. The Harbor Group, Inc. et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 54 Motion in Limine. See text of Order for details. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 12/2/15. (djs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
ESTATE OF ALEXANDER RAMOS
LEAL, By Its Administrator, CORAL
GABLES TRUST COMPANY,
GLADYS LEAL BAIGORRIA,
Individually, ARMANDO RAMOS
VALLE, Individually, and ESTATE OF
KARELYS GARCIA, By Its
Administrator, CORAL GABLES
TRUST COMPANY, and ODALYS
CORRALES, Individually,

No. C 14-4089-MWB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
Plaintiffs,
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
vs.
MOTION IN LIMINE TO
PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM
THE HARBOR GROUP, INC.,
OFFERING EVIDENCE IN
INTERSTATES CONSTRUCTION
SUPPORT OF WITHDRAWN
SERVICES, INC., and JOHN RICHARD MEDICAL EMERGENCY DEFENSE
KREYKES,
AND/OR FOR LEAVE TO
DISCLOSE EXPERTS AND
Defendants.
CONDUCT LIABILITY DISCOVERY
___________________________
This case arises from an accident in which a truck belonging to the corporate
defendants and driven by defendant Kreykes crossed the median on Interstate I-80 and
struck the decedents’ car head on, killing them both. It is before me on the plaintiffs’
November 17, 2015, Motion In Limine To Preclude Defendants From Offering Evidence
In Support Of Withdrawn Medical Emergency Defense And/Or For Leave To Disclose
Experts And Conduct Liability Discovery (docket no. 54). In their motion, the plaintiffs
assert that the defendants have withdrawn their only affirmative defense of a medical
emergency and have admitted liability, but they have indicated that they still intend to

offer at trial Kreykes’s medical records and other evidence that Kreykes had choked and
passed out prior to the crash. The plaintiffs argue that, because this case involves deaths,
not injuries, evidence of the manner in which the collision occurred, the force of the
impact, and the driver’s alleged choking are irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. In their
November 25, 2015, Resistance (docket no. 57), the defendants argue that the plaintiffs
are attempting to exclude basic background and contextual evidence regarding the cause
of the automobile crash, which should be admissible even in an “admitted liability” case,
on issues of causation of injuries and the nature and extent of those injuries. They also
assert that such evidence should be admissible to prevent jury speculation about the cause
of the accident and to address the culpability of the defendants’ actions, that is, whether
their conduct was negligent or reckless, and the appropriateness of punitive damages, so
that jury determinations are not made on an improper emotional basis.
Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines relevant evidence as evidence
that “(a) . . . has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Rule
402 provides that relevant evidence is generally admissible, but irrelevant evidence is
not. Rule 403 provides for exclusion of even relevant evidence on various grounds, as
follows:
The 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 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals “give[s] great deference to the
district court’s Rule 403 determinations.” United States v. Battle, 774 F.3d 504, 514
(8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Muhlenbruch, 634 F.3d 987, 1001 (8th Cir. 2011) (“We
review the district court’s decision not to exclude evidence under Rule 403 for an abuse
2

of discretion.”); United States v. Myers, 503 F.3d 676, 681 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Under Rule
403, district courts have broad discretion to assess unfair prejudice, and are reversed only
for an abuse of discretion.” (citing United States v. Henderson, 416 F.3d 686, 693 (8th
Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1175 (2006))).
More specifically, as to Rule 403, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has
explained,
[U]nder Rule 403, the [challenged evidence’s] probative value
must be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
“Evidence is not unfairly prejudicial because it tends to prove
guilt, but because it tends to encourage the jury to find guilt
from improper reasoning. Whether there was unfair prejudice
depends on whether there was an undue tendency to suggest
decision on an improper basis.” United States v. Farrington,
499 F.3d 854, 859 (8th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted).
Muhlenbruch, 634 F.3d at 1001 (emphasis in the original); Myers, 503 F.3d at 681 (“Rule
403 ‘does not offer protection against evidence that is merely prejudicial in the sense of
being detrimental to a party’s case. The rule protects against evidence that is unfairly
prejudicial, that is, if it tends to suggest decision on an improper basis.’” (quoting Wade
v. Haynes, 663 F.2d 778, 783 (8th Cir. 1981), aff’d sub nom. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S.
30 (1983)). The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 403 explain that a decision on an
“improper basis” is “commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.” FED. R.
EVID. 403, Advisory Committee Notes; see also United States v. Bell, 761 F.3d 900,
912 (8th Cir. 2014) (same). Unfairly prejudicial evidence, inviting a decision on an
improper basis, includes evidence that is “‘so inflammatory on [its] face as to divert the
jury’s attention from the material issues in the trial.’” United States v. Adams, 401 F.3d
886, 900 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Shoffner, 71 F.3d 1429, 1433 (8th
Cir. 1995)); accord United States v. Young, 753 F.3d 757, 768-69 (8th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he

3

district court violated Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because the testimony was so
inflammatory that its resulting unfair prejudice outweighed its probative value.”).
Here, I agree with the plaintiffs that evidence of Kreykes’s medical records, other
evidence that Kreykes had choked and passed out prior to the crash, and other background
and contextual evidence regarding the cause of the crash are not probative of any issue
for the jury to decide in this “admitted liability” case involving deaths and, hence, not
admissible in this case. See FED. R. EVID. 401, 402. Causation of and the nature and
extent of the injuries simply is not at issue, where the accident caused deaths; that fact
distinguishes this case from ones cited by the defendants. Indeed, such evidence would
likely confuse the jurors about the issues that they are to decide, because it seems to
contradict the admissions of negligence and liability and brings in through the backdoor
a previously-abandoned medical emergency defense, so that such evidence is properly
excluded pursuant to Rule 403. I believe that the defendants’ fears that excluding such
evidence will prompt the jurors to speculate or to award higher damages based on an
emotional basis, as demonstrating that the probative value of the evidence outweighs and,
indeed, prevents prejudice, are unsupported and overblown. The appropriate solutions
to these concerns are a properly formulated stipulation concerning the accident and
properly formulated jury instructions about how the jurors are to determine damages. Cf.
Valadez v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 758 F.3d 975, 982 (8th Cir. 2014) (“To the extent
[the parties] were concerned about improper prejudice, a limiting instruction would have
addressed those concerns.” (citing FED. R. EVID. 105)).
THEREFORE, the plaintiffs’ November 17, 2015, Motion In Limine To Preclude
Defendants From Offering Evidence In Support Of Withdrawn Medical Emergency
Defense And/Or For Leave To Disclose Experts And Conduct Liability Discovery
(docket no. 54) is granted, as to exclusion of the evidence in question, but denied as to

4

the alternative request to make belated expert disclosures and to conduct liability
discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 2nd day of December, 2015.

______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

5