In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation

Filing 171

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: (148 in 1:14-cv-08176-JMF) FIRST MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND/OR ARGUMENT REGARDING COLLATERAL SOURCE BENEFITS filed by Robert Scheuer, (1525 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) FIRST MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND/OR ARGUMENT REGARDING COLLATERAL SOURCE BENEFITS filed by Robert Scheuer, (1565 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND/OR ARGUMENT REGARDING PLAINITFFS PRIOR UNRELATED INJURIES AND FAMILYS MEDICAL HISTORY filed by GM Ignition Switch MDL Plaintiffs, (1573 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) THIRD MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning the Amounts Billed for Expenses Incurred, But Not Actually Paid, for Plaintiff's Medical Treatment filed by General Motors LLC: For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion No. 1 is GRANTED with respect to evidence of damages, but DENIED to the extent that New GM may later seek (with advance notice to Plaintiff and the Court) to introduce evidence of collateral benefits for impeachment or rebuttal; and Plaintiff's Motion No. 2 is GRANTED as unopposed with respect to family medical history, but DENIED with respect to evidence of prior injuries offered on issues of lost earning capacity, loss of enjoyment, or causation for any alleged shoulder injury. New GM's Motion No. 3 is unopposed and therefore GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate 14-MD-2543, Docket Nos. 1525, 1565, and 1573; and 14-CV-8176, Docket No. 148. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/23/2015) (tn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
IN RE:

11/23/2015
14-MD-2543 (JMF)
14-MC-2543 (JMF)

GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
Fleck, et al. v. General Motors LLC, 14-cv-8176
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
The first bellwether trial in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”), brought by Plaintiff
Robert S. Scheuer and familiarity with which is presumed, is scheduled to begin on January 11,
2016. (See Docket No. 1694). Currently pending are almost twenty motions in limine filed by
both parties. The Court here addresses three: Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine No. 1 and No. 2 —
which seek to preclude evidence regarding collateral source benefits and evidence regarding
Plaintiff’s prior injuries and family medical history, respectively — and New GM’s Motion In
Limine No. 3 — which seeks to preclude evidence concerning amounts billed, but not actually
paid, for Plaintiff’s medical expenses. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s Motion No. 1
is GRANTED with respect to evidence of damages, but DENIED to the extent that New GM
may later move to introduce evidence of collateral benefits for impeachment or rebuttal; and
Plaintiff’s Motion No. 2 is GRANTED as unopposed with respect to family medical history, but
DENIED with respect to evidence of prior injuries offered on issues of lost earning capacity, loss
of enjoyment, or causation for any alleged shoulder injury. New GM’s Motion No. 3 is
unopposed and therefore GRANTED.

DISCUSSION
District courts have discretion to determine evidentiary issues presented in motions in
limine in advance of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Dupree, 706 F.3d 131, 135 (2d Cir. 2013);
Henry v. Wyeth Pharm., 616 F.3d 134, 149 (2d Cir. 2010). Under Rule 402 of the Federal Rules
of Evidence, “relevant” evidence is admissible unless prohibited by rule, statute, or constitutional
provision. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. Pursuant to Rule 401, evidence is relevant if it “has any
tendency to make a [consequential] fact more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Finally, to the extent relevant here, Rule 403 prevents the
admission of otherwise relevant evidence whose “probative value is substantially outweighed by
a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting
time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. A district court’s
balancing under Rule 403 will not be overturned unless “there is a clear showing of abuse of
discretion or that the decision was arbitrary or irrational.” United States v. Bermudez, 529 F.3d
158, 161-62 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A. Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 1
As noted, Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 1 seeks to exclude evidence or argument
regarding any collateral source benefits or payments received by Plaintiff Robert S. Scheuer,
whether or not they were related to the crash that is the subject of the instant trial. (See Pl.’s
Mem. Law Supp. Mot. In Limine No. 1 (Docket No. 1526) (“Pl.’s First Mem.”) 1). New GM
agrees that Oklahoma law governs whether collateral source benefits are admissible and that,
under that law, evidence of collateral source payments cannot be introduced to diminish the
amount of any damages award. (See New GM’s Combined Resp. Pl.’s Mot. In Limine No. 1
(Docket No. 1574) (“New GM’s First Opp’n”) 2-3; Pl.’s First Mem. 1, 3). New GM argues,

2

however, that evidence of collateral payments may be admissible for other purposes —
specifically, for impeachment or rebuttal. (See New GM’s First Opp’n 5-6). 1 The Court agrees.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, Hodge v. Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc., No. 13CV-071 (KEW), 2015 WL 540815 (E.D. Okla. Feb. 9, 2015), provides support for New GM’s
position because it clearly contemplates that collateral source evidence could be admissible
under Oklahoma law for a purpose such as impeachment or rebuttal. See id. at *1; see also
Estrada v. Port City Props., Inc., 258 P.3d 495, 508 (Okla. 2011) (suggesting that introduction of
collateral source evidence is barred by Oklahoma law only when the admissibility of a specific
type of benefit is governed by statute); Robinson v. Borg-Warner Protective Servs. Corp., 31
P.3d 1041, 1045 (Okla. 2001) (holding that evidence of health insurance may be introduced to
attack a witness’s credibility). Plaintiff offers no other reason why collateral source evidence
would be unduly prejudicial if used for these purposes. (See Reply Mem. Law Further Supp.
Mot. In Limine No. 1 (Docket No. 1606) (“Pl.’s First Reply”) 3-4). The Court will therefore
follow the approach of the Hodge Court and reserve ruling until the issue is ripe at trial — at
which point relevance and Rule 403 determinations may be more easily made — on whether
New GM may introduce evidence of collateral source evidence for impeachment or rebuttal. See
Hodge, 2015 WL 540815, at *1. Before doing so, New GM shall inform the Court and Plaintiff,
outside the presence of the jury, of its intention to introduce collateral source evidence for one of

1

New GM also argues in its opposition that evidence of other injuries (and collateral
payments in connection therewith) could be relevant to “causation, work capacity, and future
earnings capacity.” (New GM’s First Opp’n 4-5). The Court agrees with Plaintiff that that
argument is properly considered in connection with Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 2; in any
case, the collateral source rule does not apply to payments for injuries that are not part of the
plaintiff’s claims against the defendant. See Blythe v. Univ. of Okla., 82 P.3d 1021, 1026 (Okla.
2003) (describing the collateral source rule as applying to torts allegedly caused by the
defendant). (Pl.’s First Reply 2-3). Accordingly, it is addressed below.

3

these purposes. As stated above, however, evidence of collateral source payments may not be
introduced for any other purpose, such as to reduce any damages award. Plaintiff’s First Motion
In Limine is accordingly GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 2
Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 2 asks the Court to exclude evidence and argument
relating to any prior injuries or medical history involving body parts not allegedly implicated in
the crash (namely, prior knee and shoulder injuries), and Plaintiff’s family medical history. (See
Pl.’s Mem. Law Supp. Mot. In Limine No. 2) (Docket No. 1566) (“Pl.’s Second Mem.”) 1). New
GM does not intend to offer any evidence with respect to Plaintiff’s family medical history, so
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as unopposed in that regard. (See New GM’s Resp. Pl.’s
Motion In Limine No. 2 (Docket No. 1646) (“New GM’s Second Opp’n”) 9 n.9).
New GM, however, is entitled to offer evidence of Plaintiff’s prior injuries with respect
to the issues of lost earning capacity and loss of enjoyment as they are plainly relevant to those
issues. The fact that Plaintiff’s prior injuries did not previously cause him difficulty in his
personal or professional life does not mean that his pre-existing injuries did not add to, or
amplify, the effect of the crash injuries, or that the pre-existing injuries on their own would not
have let to impairment down the road. See, e.g., Spencer v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., No. 98-CV2817 (DAB) (MHD), 1999 WL 405254, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 1999) (holding that the
defendant could introduce evidence of the plaintiff’s injuries that were not directly at issue in the
lawsuit because they were relevant to any claim of inability to work). As to the risk of unfair
prejudice, the prior injuries were to totally different body parts than those injured in the crash,
making the likelihood of jury confusion minimal. And while Plaintiff expresses concern that
jurors might view him as “accident-prone or a hypochondriac.” (Pl.’s Second Mem. 3-4), that

4

concern is speculative at best and does not outweigh, let alone substantially outweigh, the
probative value of the evidence at issue.
Finally, if Plaintiff introduces evidence that his shoulder was injured as a result of the
crash, New GM may introduce evidence of his prior shoulder injury or injuries on the issue of
causation. (See Pl.’s Reply Mem. Law Supp. Mot. In Limine No. 2 (Docket No. 1680) (“Pl.’s
Second Reply”) 4; New GM’s Second Opp’n 8). It may well be that Plaintiff’s shoulder injuries
were minor compared to his other injuries as a result of the car accident, but if he places them in
issue, New GM is entitled to show that the injuries had a preexisting and unrelated cause. See,
e.g., Brewer v. Jones, 222 F. App’x 69, 70-71 (2d Cir. 2007) (summary order) (“[B]ecause the
evidence was relevant to show a possible cause of [the plaintiff’s] injury unrelated to the acts of
the defendant, the district court correctly concluded that the probative value of the evidence
outweighed any possibility of prejudice.”). It would then be up to the jury to decide those
competing contentions.
Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 2 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
C. New GM’s Motion In Limine No. 3
As noted, New GM moves in its Motion In Limine No. 3 to exclude evidence concerning
amounts Plaintiff was billed, but did not pay, for his medical treatment. (See New GM’s First
Opp’n 7). Plaintiff does not contest that this evidence is inadmissible. (See Pl.’s Resp. New
GM’s Mot. In Limine No. 3 (Docket No. 1621)). New GM’s motion is therefore GRANTED.
The parties are strongly encouraged to reach a stipulation regarding the amounts paid to avoid
any waste of time or juror confusion. (See id. at 1 (noting that “Plaintiff will likely seek a
stipulation with New GM regarding the amounts paid”)).

5

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion No. 1 is GRANTED with respect to
evidence of damages, but DENIED to the extent that New GM may later seek (with advance
notice to Plaintiff and the Court) to introduce evidence of collateral benefits for impeachment or
rebuttal; and Plaintiff’s Motion No. 2 is GRANTED as unopposed with respect to family medical
history, but DENIED with respect to evidence of prior injuries offered on issues of lost earning
capacity, loss of enjoyment, or causation for any alleged shoulder injury. New GM’s Motion
No. 3 is unopposed and therefore GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate 14-MD-2543, Docket Nos. 1525, 1565, and
1573; and 14-CV-8176, Docket No. 148.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 23, 2015
New York, New York

6