Pardue v. Rural Community Insurance Company et al
Filing
66
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion in Limine. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 8/16/2016. (mb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILL PARDUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
HUMBLE INSURANCE
AGENCY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-14-1049-D
ORDER
Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions in limine [Doc. Nos. 47, 53].
The matter is fully briefed and at issue.
STANDARD OF DECISION
Although motions in limine are not formally recognized under the Federal
Rules, district courts have long recognized the potential utility of pretrial rulings
under the courts’ inherent powers to manage the course of trial proceedings. Luce
v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4 (1984). “A motion in limine presents the trial
court with the opportunity ‘to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain
forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy
argument at, or interruption of, the trial.’” Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d
1216, 1218 (D. Kan. 2007) (quoting Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2nd
Cir. 1996)). Although such pretrial rulings can save time and avoid interruptions at
trial, “a court is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the
value and utility of evidence. Consequently, a court should reserve its rulings for
those instances when the evidence plainly is ‘inadmissible on all potential grounds’
. . . and it should typically defer rulings on relevancy and unfair prejudice
objections until trial when the factual context is developed[.]” Id. (citations
omitted); see also Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Tech., Inc., 831 F.Supp. 1398,
1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (“Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary
rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and
potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.”).
A court’s rulings are subject to change as the case unfolds or at its judicial
discretion. Luce, 469 U.S. at 41. Some in limine rulings, like those involving
relevance under Rule 403, “are necessarily preliminary because the required
balancing may be reassessed as the evidence actually comes in.” United States v.
Martinez, 76 F.3d 1145, 1152 (10th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Hence, “[a]
district court may change its ruling at any time for whatever reason it deems
appropriate.” Id. (quotation omitted).
2
DISCUSSION
I.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
A.
References to Lawsuits or Other Claims
Plaintiff first moves to exclude any reference or mention of any lawsuit or
other claim than the case at bar. Defendant has no objection to the relief requested,
and Plaintiff’s motion on this issue is therefore GRANTED.
B.
Effects on the Insurance Industry
Plaintiff next moves to prohibit Defendant from mentioning or arguing this
lawsuit or other similar lawsuits in general are responsible for (1) the availability
or non-availability of insurance coverage; (2) any rise in the costs of insurance; any
personal effect this case may have on the jurors. Defendant objects to this request
as irrelevant, as no such issues are present in this case. In light of the fact
Defendant does not intend to present any evidence on the issue, Plaintiff’s motion
on this issue is DENIED as moot.
C.
Mention of a “Lawsuit Crisis”
Plaintiff moves to exclude any mention by Defendant of a “lawsuit crisis.”
Defendant objects to this request as irrelevant, unnecessary, and states it does not
intend to discuss a “lawsuit crisis” or tort reform in general. In light of the fact
Defendant does not intend to present any evidence on the issue, Plaintiff’s motion
on this issue is DENIED as moot.
3
D.
Unavailable Witnesses
Plaintiff moves to prohibit Defendant from referencing putative testimony
from any absent or unavailable witness. Defendant has no objection to the relief
requested, and Plaintiff’s motion on this issue is therefore GRANTED.
E.
Non-Taxable Nature of Recovery
Plaintiff moves to prohibit any reference to the non-taxable nature of any
recovery to be made by Plaintiff. Defendant has no objection to the relief
requested, and Plaintiff’s motion on this issue is therefore GRANTED.
F.
Manufacturing of Claims
Plaintiff moves to exclude any evidence that his claims were manufactured
by attorneys. Defendant has no objection to the relief requested, and Plaintiff’s
motion on this issue is therefore GRANTED.
G.
Plaintiff’s Damages
Plaintiff moves to prohibit Defendant from presenting any evidence refuting
Plaintiff’s damages. Plaintiff contends such evidence was not produced during
discovery and Defendant should be barred from making such presentation at trial.
Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s request and contends Plaintiff’s expert never
disclosed her opinions concerning Plaintiff’s damages. A ruling on this issue is
DEFERRED until the record is more fully developed.
4
H.
Defendant’s Phone Records
Plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting Defendant from producing evidence
regarding its alleged phone calls to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends such evidence was
not produced during discovery. Due to the factual dispute over the production and
relevance of such records, a ruling on this issue is DEFERRED until the record is
more fully developed.
II.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
A.
Ruling on Motions
Defendant moves for an order prohibiting Plaintiff from referencing the
filing of Defendant’s motion in limine and the Court’s ruling on said motions.
Plaintiff has no objection to the relief requested, and Defendant’s motion on this
issue is therefore GRANTED.
B.
Rulings on Pretrial Motions
Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from making any reference to the
Court’s rulings on the other pretrial motions made in this case. Plaintiff has no
objection to the relief requested, and Defendant’s motion on this issue is therefore
GRANTED.
C.
Plaintiff’s Personalization of the Case
Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from “personalizing” his case, i.e.,
making statements to the jury on how one would feel “if this happened to you.”
5
Plaintiff has no objection to the relief requested, and Defendant’s motion on this
issue is therefore GRANTED.
D.
Written Agreement for Canola
Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence regarding
his desire to obtain a written agreement from the Risk Management Agency to
plant canola during the 2014 crop year. Due to the factual dispute over the
relevancy of such evidence, a ruling on this issue is DEFERRED until the record is
more fully developed.
E.
References to Insurance
Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from making any reference or
inference to the existence of Defendant’s liability insurance. Plaintiff has no
objection to the relief requested, and Defendant’s motion on this issue is therefore
GRANTED.
F.
Defendant’s Financial Condition
Defendant moves for an order prohibiting Plaintiff from making any
references to Defendant’s financial condition. Plaintiff has no objection to the
relief requested, and Defendant’s motion on this issue is therefore GRANTED.1
1
However, as Defendant concedes, certain financial information is relevant to any
assessment of punitive damages. Deters v. Equifax Credit Information Services,
Inc., 202 F.3d 1262, 1273 (10th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the Court shall revisit this
issue if an instruction on punitive damages is warranted.
6
G.
“Send a Message” Arguments
Defendant moves to prohibit any argument to the jury that it should “send a
message” to Defendant or “punish” Defendant with an award of damages. Plaintiff
has no objection to the relief requested, and Defendant’s motion on this issue is
therefore GRANTED.
H.
Undisclosed Expert Opinions
Defendant seeks to exclude evidence of expert testimony in support of his
damages. The Court finds this issue is MOOT in light of its order granting
Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witness.
I.
Litigation Conduct
Defendant moves to exclude evidence of various arguments asserted by
defense counsel during the discovery phase of these proceedings. Plaintiff has no
objection to the relief requested, and Defendant’s motion on this issue is therefore
GRANTED.
J.
Hearsay Documents
Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from introducing his expert’s
disclosure and a prior email as evidence of her opinions. The Court finds this issue
is MOOT in light of its order granting Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s
expert witness.
7
K.
Defendant’s Policies and Procedures
Defendant seeks to preclude evidence referencing its internal policies and
procedures, as well as any purported failure to adhere to such policies. Due to the
factual dispute surrounding the relevancy of such evidence, a ruling on this issue is
DEFERRED until the record is more fully developed.
L.
References to Breach of Contract Claim
The Court DENIES Defendant’s request to preclude evidence of a claim for
breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. “In order to prevail on a claim
for breach of contract to procure insurance, a plaintiff must show that the insurance
agent agreed to procure insurance coverage effective as of a certain date and time,
or of a certain breadth, and then failed to do so.” Hardison v. Balboa Ins. Co., 4 F.
App’x 663, 673 (10th Cir. 2001) (unpublished) (quoting Swickey v. Silvey Cos.,
1999 OK CIV APP 48, ¶ 9, 979 P.2d 266, 268). Plaintiff’s Petition, filed
September 2, 2014, is consistent with the foregoing elements and placed Defendant
on reasonable and fair notice that he had asserted a claim for breach of contract for
failure to procure insurance. See Pet. at ¶¶ 7-12 [Doc. No. 1-2].
M.
Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
Defendant seeks to preclude evidence, through lay witness testimony, of
opinions regarding Plaintiff’s damages or the cause of his alleged injury. Plaintiff
8
has no objection to the relief requested, and Defendant’s motion on this issue is
therefore GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
In sum, and subject to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence and
subsequent developments, the Court’s rulings are as follows:
I.
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
A.
B.
Effects on the Insurance Industry - No such evidence to be offered
C.
Mention of a “Lawsuit Crisis” - No such evidence to be offered
D.
Unavailable Witnesses - Inadmissible
E.
Non-Taxable Nature of Recovery - Inadmissible
F.
Manufacturing of Claims - Inadmissible
G.
Plaintiff’s Damages - To be determined at trial
H.
II.
References to Lawsuits or Other Claims - Inadmissible
Defendant’s Phone Records - To be determined at trial
Defendant’s Motion in Limine
A.
Ruling on Motions - Inadmissible
B.
Rulings on Pretrial Motions - Inadmissible
C.
Plaintiff’s Personalization of the Case - Inadmissible
D.
Written Agreement for Canola – To be determined at trial
E.
References to Insurance - Inadmissible
9
F.
Defendant’s Financial Condition - Inadmissible
G.
“Send a Message” Arguments - Inadmissible
H.
Undisclosed Expert Opinions - Moot
I.
Litigation Conduct - Inadmissible
J.
Hearsay Documents - Moot
K.
Defendant’s Policies and Procedures - To be determined at trial
L.
References to Breach of Contract Claim - Admissible
M.
Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses on Damages - Inadmissible
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine [Doc.
No. 47] and Defendant’s Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 53] are GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth herein. With respect to any reserved
ruling, the Court cautions counsel to approach the bench and seek a ruling before
eliciting any challenged evidence or testimony.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2016.
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?