Lee v. Dennison et al

Filing 125

ORDER Denying 88 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 1/17/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TRW)

Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 125 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

ALEXIS LEE,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

13

ORDER

v.
DINO DENNISON, et al.,

11
12

Case No. 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK

Defendants.
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Arguments
Regarding Lack of Drug and Alcohol Testing (#88). Plaintiff responded in opposition. (#114).

14

I.

15

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident on September 9, 2017. Plaintiff Alexis Lee

Factual and Procedural Background

16

(“Lee”) was driving an economy-sized Hyundai Sonata and Defendant Dino Dennison

17

(“Dennison”) was driving a semi-truck as an employee of Defendant Knight Transportation

18

(“Knight”) when the two vehicles collided. A police officer was nearby and responded to the

19

incident, assessed the situation, and filed a report. Lee filed suit against Dennison and Knight for

20

damages.

21

Defendants bring this motion in limine to exclude arguments regarding a lack of drug and

22

alcohol testing that is required by a federal regulation under particular circumstances following a

23

commercial vehicle crash on a public road.

24

II.

25

A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism made in advance to limit testimony or

26

evidence in a particular area” and is “entirely within the discretion of the Court.” Diamond X

27

Ranch, LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., No. 3:13-cv-00570-MMD-WGC, 2018 WL 2127734, at

28

*1 (D. Nev. May 8, 2018). A “motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or

Analysis

Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 125 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

1

weigh evidence.” IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp., No. 2:04-cv-1676-RCJ-RJJ, 2008 WL

2

7084605, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2008). “To exclude evidence on a motion in limine, ‘the

3

evidence must be inadmissible on all potential grounds.’” Diamond X Ranch, 2018 WL

4

2127734, at *1 (quoting Indiana Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D.

5

Ohio 2004)).

6

Fed. R. Evid. (“Rule”) 401 provides that “evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to

7

make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of

8

consequence in determining the action.” Rule 402 states in pertinent part, “[i]rrelevant evidence

9

is not admissible.” The Court may also exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially

10

outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, misleading the jury, or needlessly presenting

11

cumulative evidence. Rule 403.

12

Defendants petitions the Court to prevent Plaintiff from making arguments about the lack of

13

alcohol or drug testing after the incident. (#88). The Code of Federal Regulations requires post-

14

accident testing under certain circumstances. The regulation, § 382.303 states that:

15

(a) As soon as practicable following an occurrence involving a
commercial motor vehicle operating on a public road in
commerce, each employer shall test for alcohol for each of its
surviving drivers:

16
17
18
19
20
21

(1) Who was performing safety-sensitive functions with
respect to the vehicle, if the accident involved the loss of
human life’ or
(2) Who receives a citation within 8 hours of the occurrence
under State or local law for a moving traffic violation
arising from the accident, if the accident involved:
i. Bodily injury to any person who, as a result of the
injury, immediately receives medical treatment away
from the scene of the accident; or

22
23

ii. One or more motor vehicles incurring disabling
damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor
vehicle to be transported away from the scene by a tow
truck or other motor vehicle.

24
25
26

49 C.F.R. § 382.303(a).

27
The same circumstances mandate testing for controlled substances. 49 C.F.R. § 383.303(b).
28
Defendants argue that any mention of a lack of alcohol or drug testing is irrelevant and will
-2-

Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 125 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

1

unduly prejudice Defendants and mislead the jury. (#88, at 7). Defendants assert that the police

2

officer at the scene did not suspect Dennison of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs and

3

that the officer told Dennison that he was free to leave. (#88-2, at 4). Defendants also assert that

4

only after Dennison left did Lee request an ambulance to take her to the hospital, so neither

5

Dennison nor Knight knew that the circumstances warranted a test as required under §

6

382.303(a)(b). (#88, at 4). Defendants do not address, however, whether Dennison or Knight

7

knew that Lee’s car had to be towed from the scene. Ultimately, Defendants argue that Knight

8

had no reason to require any testing from Dennison because Knight lacked knowledge that the §

9

383.303 circumstances applied, so any mention of it will be needless.

10

Plaintiff argues that Dennison was given a citation for the crash, that Lee was taken by

11

ambulance to the hospital, and that Lee’s car was towed from the scene, thus, the regulation

12

mandated testing. (#114, at 3). Plaintiff also asserts that Dennison leaving the scene consists of

13

“willful blindness” and does not excuse the obligations under § 383.303(a)(b).

14

The Court finds that this is irrelevant because it goes to the issue of liability and Defendants

15

have already accepted liability. (#94). The only issue remaining for trial is that of damages. Id.

16

Whether or not Defendants failed to meet their obligation under federal regulation is not germane

17

to the amount of damages Plaintiff may or may not be entitled to.

18

III.

Conclusion

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine (#88) is

20

DENIED.

21

Dated this 17th day of January, 2023.

22
23
24

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

-3-