Fields v. Ashford et al

Filing 144

ORDER Resolving 111 , 112 , 113 , 119 and 121 Motions in Limine. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANGELA J. FIELDS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-11812
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
PIERRE OCTAVIUS ASHFORD, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS
IN LIMINE (ECF Nos. 111, 112, 113, 119, AND 121)
On May 23, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the parties’ motions in limine.
For the reasons stated on the record during the hearing, and until further order of the
Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
 Defendants’ motion in limine (ECF No. 111) to preclude references to
Plaintiff’s stricken liability expert, Gary McDonald, is GRANTED.
Neither party shall reference Mr. McDonald, his work, his expert report,
or his opinions at trial. Nor shall either party use any exhibit or any data
created by Mr. McDonald.
 Defendants’ motion in limine (ECF No. 112) to preclude references to
Plaintiff’s undisclosed medical providers is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as follows. Plaintiff may call Dr. Hassan Alosh and
1

Dr. Peter Biglin as witnesses at trial provided that, prior to trial, (1)
Plaintiff promptly executes all necessary authorizations so that Defendants
may obtain the treating records of doctors Alosh and Biglin and (2) doctors
Alosh and Biglin make themselves available for a deposition. Defendants
may file an expedited motion to exclude the opinion testimony of doctors
Alosh and Biglin if they believe that there is a good faith basis to do so.
Absent further order of the Court, Plaintiff shall not introduce into
evidence any testimony or treatment records related to Plaintiff’s
diagnoses and/or and treatment that occurs after May 23, 2022.
 Defendants’ motion in limine (ECF No. 113) to preclude admission of the
police reports and related evidence is GRANTED IN PART AND
TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART. Absent a further ruling
from the Court, all police reports are inadmissible and shall not be
introduced into evidence at trial. Nor may the parties ask questions of
witnesses soliciting the substance of the police reports. The parties shall
file supplemental briefs on the issue of whether the Court should exclude
the opinion testimony of certain police officers who responded to the scene
of the accident under the decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit in Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2015).
Defendants shall file their supplemental brief by no later than May 31,
2

2022. Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendants’ supplemental brief by
no later than June 7, 2022.
 Plaintiff’s motion in limine (ECF No. 119) to preclude testimony and
evidence regarding impact speed is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as follows. Absent further order of the Court, no party
shall reference the fact that Plaintiff’s speedometer needle was stuck on 92
miles-per-hour following Plaintiff’s accident. If, during trial, Defendants
come to believe that this evidence has become admissible for some
purpose, Defendants may, outside the presence of the jury, ask the Court
to reconsider this ruling. To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion seeks to
exclude any other evidence related to Plaintiff’s speed, the motion is
DENIED.
 Defendants’ motion in limine (ECF No. 122) to preclude references to
insurance is GRANTED. If, during trial, Plaintiff comes to believe that
this evidence has become admissible for some purpose, Plaintiff may,
outside the presence of the jury, ask the Court to reconsider this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2022

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on May 24, 2022, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

4