Eveler, et al v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 55

ORDER AND REASONS denying without prejudice #38 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Any Reference to or Evidence, Testimony or Argument Concerning Other Accidents, Incidents, Claims, Complaints and/or Lawsuits; FURTHER ORDERED that no later than 6/20/2017, plaintiffs file into the record a list setting out (1) all accidents and incidents that they claim are "substantially similar" to the accident at issue, (2) plaintiffs' contentionson an incident-by-incident basis, and supported by appropriate legal citationsas to why each and every incident and accident is substantially similar to the accident at issue, and (3) what documents plaintiffs intend to introduce and discuss with respect to each such accident. FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that Ford wishes to renew its objections, Ford shall do so no later than 6/26/2017. When doing so, Ford would be well-advised to respond to plaintiffs' accident-by-accident discussions of substantial similarity. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/13/2017.(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KAYLEE EVELER ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
FORD MOTOR CO.

No. 16-14776
ORDER AND REASONS

SECTION I

Ford moves 1 for an order precluding plaintiffs from referencing any other
accidents or incidents involving the Ford Explorer, as well as any complaints, claims,
or lawsuits related thereto. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. However, despite both sides
recognizing that the admissibility of any such evidence or testimony largely turns on
the similarity of the accidents and incidents to the accident at issue, neither side
actually provides an explanation as to whether a particular incident is similar or
dissimilar to the accident at issue. Therefore, the Court will deny Ford’s motion
without prejudice to Ford’s ability to raise more specific objections to particular
accidents and incidents.

In order to facilitate the process, the Court will order

plaintiffs to provide a list of all other accidents and incidents of which plaintiffs
intend to introduce evidence of. Plaintiffs are cautioned to be judicious in generating
their list; this Court will not hold “time-consuming mini-trials on [] minimally
relevant issues.” In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 113 F.3d 444, 454 (3d Cir. 1997).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Ford’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1

R. Doc. No. 38.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than June 20, 2017, plaintiffs file
into the record a list setting out (1) all accidents and incidents that they claim are
“substantially similar” to the accident at issue, (2) plaintiffs’ contentions—on an
incident-by-incident basis, and supported by appropriate legal citations—as to why
each and every incident and accident is substantially similar to the accident at issue,
and (3) what documents plaintiffs intend to introduce and discuss with respect to
each such accident.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that Ford wishes to renew
its objections, Ford shall do so no later than June 26, 2017. When doing so, Ford
would be well-advised to respond to plaintiffs’ accident-by-accident discussions of
substantial similarity.
New Orleans, Louisiana, June 13, 2017.

_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2