Wise v. Southern Tier Express, Inc.

Filing 119

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part Plaintiff's 84 Motion in Limine No. 8 (Liens, Loans, and Advances). Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

RODERICK WISE, an individual,

5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHERN TIER EXPRESS, INC., a New
York corporation; DOES I through X; and
ROE CORPORATIONS I through X,
inclusive,

Case No. 2:15-cv-01219-APG-PAL
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 (LIENS,
LOANS, AND ADVANCES)
(ECF No. 84)

Defendants.

10
11

Plaintiff Roderick Wise seeks to exclude “any reference to any liens, loans, or pre-

12

settlement advances by Mr. Wise.” ECF No. 84. Whether Wise has had to borrow money

13

because he cannot work is irrelevant to the issues to be tried in this case. The defendant contends

14

that Wise’s loans show he “had a financial motivation for obtaining an attorney and treating (so

15

he could take loans out against his case that he needed immediately) and incentive to testify in a

16

certain manner to pay back those loans.” ECF No. 102 at 3. But injury victims often retain

17

attorneys and treat with physicians for legitimate purposes (e.g., physical and monetary recovery

18

from their injuries). The fact that Wise had financial difficulties because he could not drive after

19

this accident has little if any probative value. Thus, evidence of loans or advances is not

20

admissible at trial.

21

However, evidence of medical liens is admissible. The Supreme Court of Nevada has

22

held that evidence of medical liens is admissible to prove bias, and “does not invoke the collateral

23

source rule.” Khoury v. Seastrand, 377 P.3d 81, 94 (Nev. 2016). The existence of a lien could

24

implicate the lienholder’s credibility (i.e., whether the lien-holding witness is testifying a certain

25

way to help the plaintiff recover funds to pay the lien). I therefore will not preclude the defendant

26

from asking Wise’s witnesses whether they hold a medical lien and in what amount. Nor will I

27

preclude the defendants from arguing that lien-holding witnesses may be biased because they

28

1

have an incentive to assist Wise in maximizing recovery. An expert’s compensation is relevant

2

and admissible as it may impact bias.

3
4
5
6
7

Therefore, Wise’s motion in limine (ECF No. 84) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as set forth above.
DATED this 10th day of July, 2017.
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2