Lee v. Dennison et al

Filing 130

ORDER Granting 93 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 130 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2

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. 6 to Preclude Use of Reptile
Arguments During Trial. (#93). Plaintiff responded in opposition. (#119).

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 nearby police officer responded to the incident,

19

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

20

Defendants bring this motion in limine to preclude Plaintiff from making arguments or

21

presenting evidence that will promote (1) a sense of fear, (2) self-preservation to protect

22

community, and (3) punishment for Defendants.

23

II.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

Analysis

Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 130 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Ohio 2004)).

5

Defendants’ concern lies with “a recent trend among the plaintiff bar suggesting that plaintiff

6

lawyers must appeal to the jurors’ own sense of self-protection in order to persuade and prevail

7

at trial” called the “Reptile Strategy.” (#93, at 5). According to this theory, jurors award larger

8

verdicts to plaintiffs because of an appeal made by lawyers to jurors’ primary instinct of self-

9

preservation and sense of fear. Id. Defendant’s do not want Plaintiff’s counsel couching

10

“allegations of liability in terms of safety rather than standard of care.” Id. at 6. Defendants also

11

object to any reference to “Golden Rule” arguments as improper, because it encourages jurors to

12

depart from neutrality and issue a judgment while imagining what the juror themselves would

13

want. Id.

14

Plaintiff objects to the motion and argues that it is an unnecessary request to the Court

15

because it is nothing more than “baseless pre-trial speculation.” (#119, at 3). Plaintiff takes issue

16

with the accusation that Plaintiff’s counsel may violate well-established trial procedure and

17

conduct, as well as the broad nature of the “reptile argument” claim. Id.

18

The Court notes that no attorney misconduct will be allowed during trial. The Court also

19

notes that although somewhat vague, the concerns of Defendants are well taken. The Court

20

reminds the parties that arguments should be made consistent with the jury instructions and

21

according to the standard of care. And as Plaintiff argued, the Defendants may object to specific

22

instances of misconduct as may or may not occur during the trial.

23

III.

Conclusion

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine (#93) is

25

GRANTED.

26

Dated this 17th day of January, 2023.

27
28

_________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge
-2-