North Star Mutual Insurance Company v. CNH America et al

Filing 99

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 72 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 82 Motion in Limine. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 3/6/2014. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NORTH STAR MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, AS
SUBROGEE FOR KYLAN MEIER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CNH AMERICA LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. 11-4133-KES

ORDER RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendant.
Plaintiff, North Star Mutual Insurance Company, moves in limine to
preclude defendant, CNH America LLC, from entering any evidence, argument,
discussion or testimony concerning certain evidence. Each motion will be
discussed separately.
1.

Evidence of a settlement between North Star and Titan
Machinery.

North Star moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408, to exclude
any reference by CNH to a settlement between North Star and Titan Machinery.
CNH responds that evidence of a settlement should be admissible as
impeachment for bias if North Star calls a witness employed by CNH.
Rule 408 states that evidence of a settlement is not admissible on behalf
of any party to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim, or
to impeach with a prior inconsistent statement. Fed. R. Evid. 408(a). See, e.g.,
First Premier Bank v. Kolcraft Enter., Inc., 686 N.W.2d 430, 443 (S.D. 2004)
(settlement not admissible to show that because there had been a previous

claim against another tortfeasor, plaintiff’s claim against Kolcraft was invalid).
Such evidence is admissible, however, for some limited purposes. Fed. R. Evid.
408(b). As a result, the court finds that evidence of the settlement is not
admissible in CNH’s case-in-chief to show the validity or amount of the claim
against North Star.
CNH also seeks to use the evidence of a settlement with Titan to impeach
any witnesses from Titan based on potential bias. Rule 408(b) specifically
provides for an exception allowing the admission of settlement evidence to
prove a witness’s bias or prejudice. Therefore, if North Star calls an employee of
Titan as a witness, the court finds that the settlement evidence is admissible to
show bias.
Rule 408 is limited to evidence of a settlement only, however. North Star
seeks to use Rule 408 to preclude the issue of Titan’s liability entirely. Not only
would that far exceed the scope of Rule 408, but it would make it virtually
impossible for CNH to present its defense and would undermine the system of
distribution of fault for joint tortfeasors enacted by the South Dakota
legislature. See SDCL 15-8-15; see also Duncan v. Pennington County Housing
Authority, 283 N.W.2d 546, 550-51 (S.D. 1979).
“Although it may be appropriate to inform the jury that the plaintiff has
settled with other defendants, to explain their absence from proceedings
against the remaining defendant, the details of any settlement with the other
defendants is not ordinarily admissible, and the jury should ordinarily be
2

cautioned that they should not consider the settlement with other defendants
in considering the claim against a remaining defendant.” Pioneer Hi-Bred
Intern., Inc. v. Ottawa Plant Food, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 135, 145 (N.D. Iowa 2003). In
this case, although there may be some value to explaining the circumstances
leading to Titan’s absence to the jury, the court will not do so without the
consent of both parties.
In conclusion, the court grants North Star’s motion in limine to preclude
reference to a settlement between North Star and Titan, but that ruling is
limited to the settlement itself, and it does not preclude CNH from contesting
Titan’s degree of liability. Additionally, if North Star calls any witnesses who are
employed by Titan, evidence of the settlement is admissible to establish bias.
2.

Information relating to the history of fires, or a lack of fires,
in Case IH combines.

North Star moves to prohibit CNH from introducing testimony regarding
previous combine fires, or a lack of combine fires, based on Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37(c), which provides that a party failing to provide information
required under Rule 26(a) or (e) may be prevented from introducing that
evidence at trial. CNH responds that it does not plan to introduce any evidence
of other combine fires, but CNH reserves the right to present evidence about
the lack of fires and about fire risks in general.
North Star argues that it requested production of all documents relating
to relevant combine fires, that CNH replied that it would look for any such

3

documents, and that CNH never produced any documents or supplemented its
response in any way. Docket 72 at 6-7; Docket 95 at 5-6. CNH responded that
it did not produce any documents because it did not have any. Docket 75 at 6.
The fact that CNH did not provide information relating to previous fires would
be reason to preclude CNH from introducing evidence of those fires at trial. Not
only does CNH state that it will not do so, it states that it cannot do so because
no such documents or incidents exist. Because CNH does not object to the
motion in limine, North Star’s motion in limine is granted. CNH may not
introduce evidence related to specific combine fires not disclosed during
discovery, but CNH may discuss the lack of combine fires and fire risks
generally.
3.

Evidence relating to Al Meier’s combine.

Plaintiff has withdrawn this motion in limine. Docket 95 at 6.
4.

Evidence on whether Kylan Meier would have heard a broken
blade hitting and puncturing the floor pan of the combine.

North Star seeks to prohibit testimony from one of CNH’s experts on
whether it would have been possible for Kylan Meier to hear a broken chopper
blade hit and puncture the combine’s floor pan. North Star contends such
testimony is irrelevant, speculative, not based on scientific methods, and will
not assist the trier of fact.
Rule 702 requires that an expert witness be qualified based on
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Fed. R. Evid. 702. An
expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge must help the trier
4

of fact understand evidence or determine a fact in issue, it must be based on
sufficient facts or data, it must be the product of reliable principles and
methods, and the expert must reliably apply those principles and methods to
the facts of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)-(d). These factors are not exclusive,
and each need not be considered in every case. Shuck v. CNH America, LLC,
498 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2007). “[O]bservations coupled with expertise
generally may form the bases of an admissible expert opinion.” Id. at 875 (citing
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999)). CNH’s experts have
experience regarding combine operation, which could help a jury decide
whether Kylan Meier should have been aware something was wrong with his
combine. The opinion that Kylan could have heard the blade puncture the floor
pan is based on observation and experience. North Star may attack the
credibility of the expert opinions on cross-examination. Accordingly, North
Star’s motion in limine is denied.
5.

Evidence that Titan repaired the combine’s blades prior to the
fire.

North Star seeks to preclude any reference to Titan’s repair work on the
blades of Kylan Meier’s combine based on Rule 403 and its position that Titan’s
liability should not be an issue during this trial. Although evidence of a
settlement generally is not admissible under Rule 408, Titan’s liability is an
issue in this case. Evidence relating to the repair work performed by Titan is

5

probative evidence and does not create a risk of undue prejudice to North Star
or confusion. Accordingly, North Star’s motion in limine is denied.
6.

References to Kylan Meier’s Facebook page.

In its supplemental motions in limine, Docket 82, North Star requests
that CNH be prohibited from discussing Kylan Meier’s Facebook page. CNH
does not oppose this request so long as it applies to both sides. Therefore, the
court grants North Star’s motion in limine, and it will apply to both sides.
7.

Testimony regarding the video of the fire taken by Kylan Meier
on his cell phone.

In its supplemental motions in limine, Docket 82, North Star also seeks
to preclude any reference to the video of the fire Kylan Meier took on his cell
phone. North Star takes the position that the video is irrelevant because it no
longer exists. A video of the fire is relevant to issues in this case. See Fed. R.
Evid. 401. The fact that the video no longer exists does not impact its
relevance. The original video is not required. See Fed. R. Evid. 1004. Although
the video cannot itself be introduced, a witness with proper foundation may
discuss the video. The court lacks sufficient information to decide whether an
adverse inference instruction is appropriate at this time. North Star’s motion in
limine is denied.
Dated March 6, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6