Vigilant Insurance Company et al v. North Suburban Towing

Filing 90

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant's Motion in Limine 59 is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine 66 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 3. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine 67 is DENIED without preju dice; 4. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine 68 is GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part; and 5. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine 69 is DENIED without prejudice. (Written Opinion) Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 05/13/2019. (LLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Vigilant Insurance Company,
a/s/o Relay House, Inc., and
Federal Insurance Company,
a/s/o Relay House, Inc.,

Civ. No. 17-1351 (PAM/HB)

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

North Suburban Towing, Inc.,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Motions in Limine.
A.

Plaintiffs’ Motions
Plaintiffs filed four separate Motions in Limine.
1.

Testifying Witnesses

Plaintiffs’ first Motion asks that the Court exclude testifying non-party witnesses
from the courtroom until they are called to testify. The Court agrees that most non-party
witnesses should be excluded from the courtroom during other witnesses’ testimony.
However, the Court will not exclude the parties’ expert witnesses from the courtroom. The
Motion is therefore granted in part and denied in part.
2.

Opinions of Non-Testifying Witnesses

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s expert witness will testify regarding opinions of
individuals who will not testify in this matter. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the
expert relies on four different opinions in the claim files and that such opinions are

inadmissible hearsay. But as Defendant points out, the claim files are Plaintiffs’ own
business records, and the contents of those records is generally admissible either as a
business record or as an admission of a party.
To the extent that there are matters within the records that may nevertheless be
inadmissible, such decisions must await the development of the evidence at trial. This
Motion is denied without prejudice.
3.

Affirmative Defenses

Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike Defendant’s affirmative defenses of contributory
negligence/assumption of the risk, unavoidable damages, laches, and spoliation of
evidence. Defendant opposes the Motion only as it relates to the Plaintiffs’ comparative
fault.
Whether the evidence will establish any comparative fault on the part of Plaintiffs’
insured must await the presentation of that evidence at trial. The Motion is granted as to
the defenses of unavoidable damages, laches, and spoliation of evidence, and denied
without prejudice as to comparative fault.
4.

Undisclosed Opinions

Finally, Plaintiffs seek to exclude from evidence any opinions not previously
disclosed. The Court expects counsel to act as officers of the Court and does not anticipate
counsel introducing any undisclosed opinions. This Motion is denied without prejudice to
objection during trial.

2

B.

Defendant’s Motion
Defendant’s only Motion in Limine asks the Court to preclude Plaintiffs from

offering into evidence the report of their expert witness. Expert witness reports are
typically not admissible, and Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition to the Motion in any
event. The Motion is therefore granted.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Docket No. 59) is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Docket No. 66) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part;

3.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Docket No. 67) is DENIED without
prejudice;

4.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Docket No. 68) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED without prejudice in part; and

5.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Docket No. 69) is DENIED without
prejudice.

Dated: May 13, 2019

s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge

3