Lee v. Dennison et al

Filing 132

ORDER Denying as premature 97 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 132 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
9
10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
DINO DENNISON, et al.,

11
12

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

Defendants.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (#97) to preclude

13

Defendants from suggesting that there may be undisclosed medical records. Defendants filed a

14

response in opposition (#107).

15

I. Background

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

(“Knight”) when the two vehicles collided. While Defendants have generally accepted liability,

20

the parties still dispute the amount and causation of damages alleged by Plaintiff.

21

Plaintiff’s first motion in limine argues that “Defendants should be precluded from

22

arguing that Alexis suffered from some imaginary spine injury, or that some injury predating the

23

crash, solely because Plaintiff lacks medical records to disprove Defendants’ baseless

24

allegations.” Doc. No. 97 at p. 6, l.15-17. Plaintiffs argue that allowing such argument would

25

require Plaintiff to prove a negative.

26

II. Analysis

27
28

A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism made in advance to limit testimony or
evidence in a particular area” and is “entirely within the discretion of the Court.” Diamond X

Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 132 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

Ohio 2004)).

8

Plaintiff argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 403 precludes any testimony regarding

9

missing medical records: “[even] [r]elevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is

10

substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the

11

jury, or if it would result in undue delay, waste of time, or a needlessly cumulative presentation

12

of evidence.” Plaintiffs argue that the evidence is not relevant and its admission would be too

13

prejudicial.

14

However, with causation and damages still at issue, prior injury is relevant and it appears

15

that Defendant intends to address this through Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, Defenses’ expert

16

witness, and Plaintiff’s existing medical records. Defendants oppose the motion asserting that

17

they are not relying on a lack of records to prove a pre-existing back injury. The Court agrees

18

that Defendants may attempt to introduce relevant evidence of prior injury. The weight and

19

credibility of that evidence is for the jury to decide. To the extent that Defendants refer to a lack

20

of medical records, they must lay the appropriate foundation before doing so. Accordingly, the

21

Court denies the motion in limine as premature, subject to renewal if Defendants ask questions

22

with appropriate foundation demonstrating relevance and lack of prejudice.

23

III. Conclusion

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (#97) is

25

DENIED as premature.

26

Dated this 17th day of January, 2023.

27
28

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

-2-