Fields v. BNSF Railway Company

Filing 298

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West denying 157 Plaintiff's MOTION in Limine Regarding Mitigation of Damages, subject to re-urging at trial. (adw, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DARRYL E. FIELDS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
a corporation,
Defendant.

Case No. CIV-16-213-KEW

O R D E R
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in
Limine

Regarding

Plaintiff
(“BNSF”)

seeks
from

Mitigation
to

preclude

introducing

mitigate his damages.

of

Damages

Defendant

evidence

that

(Docket
BNSF

Entry

Railway

Plaintiff

#157).
Company

failed

to

Plaintiff contends that BNSF has produced

no evidence of malingering, his physician placed restrictions upon
his ability to work, no offers of employment have been made to
him, and no evidence has been provided by BNSF to show that
appropriate jobs were available for his employment.

BNSF counters

that Plaintiff is attempting to obtain summary judgment on an
affirmative defense through the improper vehicle of a limine
motion.

BNSF relies upon the deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s

physician to conclude that Plaintiff is able to perform some type
of

work,

has

no

permanent

weight

restriction,

has

avoided

vocational rehabilitation and “return to work” discussions, and

1

has not attempted to obtain employment since the incident which
resulted in his alleged injury.
Federal courts generally disfavor motions in limine prior to
trial since the Court has no way of knowing:

(a) whether the

challenged evidence will be offered at trial; (b) if so, for what
purpose or purposes the evidence will be offered; (c) whether, if
offered, some or all of such evidence might be admissible for one
or more purposes; and (d) if admissible, whether its probative
value

might

introduction.

be

outweighed

by

the

prejudicial

effect

of

its

Hess v. Inland Asphalt Company, et al., 1990 WL

51164 (E.D. Wash. 1990); Scarboro v. Traveler's Insurance Co., 91
F.R.D. 21, 22 (E.D. Tenn. 1981).

Ruling upon a motion in limine

is within the sound discretion of the court.

U.S. v. Kennedy, 714

F.2d 968, 975 (9th Cir. 1983) cert. denied 465 U.S. 1034.

At this

stage of the proceedings, it is impossible for this Court to rule
on this issue in a vacuum without the benefit of considering the
evidence on mitigation of damages.

BNSF has presented at least a

skeletal case to support its affirmative defense at this pretrial
stage.

Consideration of the exclusion of this defense and the

associated evidence will be reserved for trial.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
Regarding Mitigation of Damages (Docket Entry #157) is hereby
DENIED, subject to re-urging at trial.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2021.

______________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3