Brumer et al v. Gray

Filing 92

ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF Nos. 86 , 87 Motions in Limine. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/10/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Case 3:17-cv-00576-MMD-WGC Document 92 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

URSZULA BRUMER, et al.,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00576-MMD-WGC
Plaintiffs,

7

ORDER

v.
8
LAURIE ANN GRAY,
9
Defendant.
10
11

I.

SUMMARY

12

This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident in which Plaintiffs Urszula Brumer

13

and Malgorzata Kasprzak-Guzek allegedly sustained physical injuries after being rear-

14

ended by Defendant Laurie Gray on Nevada Highway 88. 1 Before the Court are

15

Defendant’s two motions in limine (ECF Nos. 86 (“MIL #1”), 87 (“MIL #2”)). 2 For the

16

reasons explained below, the Court will deny both motions.

17

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

18

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

19

or evidence in a particular area. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th

20

Cir.2009). It is a preliminary motion that is entirely within the discretion of the Court. See

21

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-42 (1984). To exclude evidence on a motion in

22

limine, “the evidence must be inadmissible on all potential grounds.” See, e.g., Ind. Ins.

23

Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004). “Unless evidence meets

24

this high standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of

25

foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.”

26
27
28

1The

discovery deadline is February 20, 2019 (ECF No. 30 at 1, 4), and jury trial
has been set for October 20, 2020 (ECF No. 81 at 18).
2The

Court has also reviewed Plaintiffs’ responses (ECF Nos. 88, 89).

Case 3:17-cv-00576-MMD-WGC Document 92 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 4
1

Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Tech., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). This

2

is because although rulings on motions in limine may save “time, cost, effort and

3

preparation, a court is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the

4

value and utility of evidence.” Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1218 (D. Kan.

5

2007).

6

In limine rulings are provisional. Such “rulings are not binding on the trial judge . . .

7

[who] may always change h[er] mind during the course of a trial.” Ohler v. U.S., 529 U.S.

8

753, 758 n.3 (2000). “Denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all

9

evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted at trial.” Ind. Ins. Co., 326 F. Supp.

10

2d at 846. “Denial merely means that without the context of trial, the court is unable to

11

determine whether the evidence in question should be excluded.” Id.

12

III.

MIL #1 (ECF NO. 86)

13

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs should be precluded from presenting any

14

testimony in support of future medical treatment because: (1) Plaintiffs have produced no

15

evidence showing that such treatment is necessary; (2) Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Cash,

16

instructed Kasprzak-Guzek to “hold off” surgery for “as long as tolerable”; (3) Kasprzak-

17

Guzek testified on May 11, 2018 that she had no specific plans to have future surgery and

18

did not determine whether she would even have surgery in the United States or in Poland;

19

and (4) Dr. Cash is not qualified to testify as to medical costs in Poland. (ECF No. 86 at 4-

20

8.) But Plaintiffs point to evidence showing that, inter alia, Dr. Cash recommended surgery

21

(see e.g., ECF No. 75 at 62 (“[Kasprzak-Guzek] requires cervical reconstruction . . .”)),

22

and that Kasprzak-Guzek is in the process of scheduling her surgery this year in the United

23

States with Dr. Cash. 3 (ECF No. 88-3 at 4). (ECF No. 88 at 4-7.) The Court agrees with

24

Plaintiffs. Because Defendant has, at most, raised factual disputes regarding future

25

medical treatment, the Court will deny MIL #1. See McConnell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

26
27
28

3Defendant

admits that Dr. Cash is familiar with surgery prices in the United States.

(ECF No. 86 at 8.)
2

Case 3:17-cv-00576-MMD-WGC Document 92 Filed 09/10/20 Page 3 of 4
1

995 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1167 (D. Nev. 2014) (“[A] motion in limine should not be used to

2

resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence.”).

3

IV.

MIL #2 (ECF NO. 87)

4

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs should be precluded from seeking past, special

5

medical damages incurred while in Poland because: (1) nearly all records purportedly

6

supporting past damages accrued in Poland are mostly in Polish; (2) Plaintiffs have not

7

designated an expert witness, nor are they personally qualified, to translate the Polish

8

medical records; (3) Plaintiffs have not disclosed authenticated, translated copies of any

9

of the Polish medical records; and (4) there is no indication that Plaintiffs’ sole expert, Dr.

10

Cash, is capable of reviewing the Polish records. (ECF No. 87 at 4-5, 7-9.) Plaintiffs argue

11

among other things that MIL #2 is vague because it does not specify the evidence it seeks

12

to exclude. (ECF No. 89 at 3-4.) The Court agrees with Plaintiffs.

13

Defendant vaguely argues that “[n]early all the records purportedly supporting the

14

damages accrued in Poland are, at least in majority part, in Polish rather than English.”

15

(ECF No. 87 at 9 (emphases added).) But Defendant only points to three pages “as a

16

sample of the Polish documents.” 4 (Id. (citing to ECF No. 87-1 at 111-14).) Defendant has

17

not specifically identified the medical records that are in English. As such, because

18

excluding all testimony regarding past medical damages is too broad a remedy under

19

these facts, the Court denies MIL #2.

20

V.

CONCLUSION

21

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases

22

not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines

23

that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motions before

24

the Court.

25

///

26
27
28

4Defendant

also cites to several bates pages (ECF No. 87 at 10), but they fail to
include the appropriate ECF citations. Without it, the Court cannot review these bates
pages.
3

Case 3:17-cv-00576-MMD-WGC Document 92 Filed 09/10/20 Page 4 of 4
1

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiffs’ motions in limine (ECF Nos. 86, 87) are denied.

2

DATED THIS 10th day of September 2020.

3
4

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4