State Farm Fire and Casualty v. Helen of Troy, Limited et al

Filing 100

ORDER granting Defendants' 86 Motion for Relief from the Court's Order on Motions in Limine. Plaintiff's Motions in Limine are GRANTED, DENIED, AND DEFERRED as stated in this order. Defendants' Motions in Limine remain undisturbed. This Order amends the Court's prior Order (Dkt. # 85 ). Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY,
as subrogee for Catherine Robinson,

11
12

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR RELIEF AND ORDER AMENDING
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff,

13

Case No. C15-1771RSM

v.

14
HELEN OF TROY, LLC, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

18

INTRODUCTION

19

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Relief from the Court’s

20

Order on Motions in Limine, brought under Rule 60(b)(1). Dkt. #86. Plaintiff State Farm

21

opposes this Motion. Dkt. #96.1 The Court has reviewed the arguments of the parties and finds

22

that Defendants’ failure to file responses to Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine was due to mistake or

23
24

excusable neglect in assuming that “all remaining pretrial deadlines” included the deadline to

25

respond to motions in limine, and that this forms a reasonable basis for Defendants’ requested

26

relief whether properly brought under Rule 60(b)(1) or as a motion for reconsideration. In

27
1

28

The Court notes that State Farm’s Response was filed two days after the deadline. See LCR 7(d)(3).
Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed this Response. Both parties are advised to thoroughly review and follow this
Court’s Local Rules.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF AND ORDER AMENDING ORDER
ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 1

1

reviewing Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine, filed after the Court’s Order

2

analyzing the same, the Court cannot see how Defendants gained an unfair advantage because

3

the Court did not provide extensive analysis in its Order. Accordingly, the Court will consider

4

Defendants’ Responses and make the following change to its prior Order. Defendants’ Motions

5
6
7

in Limine remain undisturbed. Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees is unsupported and denied.
II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

8

1. The Court previously granted this Motion to exclude Defendants’ affirmative defenses

9

from trial based on Defendants’ failure to respond. Dkt. #85 at 1-2. Specifically, the

10
11
12

Court relied on Plaintiff’s uncontested argument that Defendants’ response to
Interrogatory No. 9 was insufficient to factually support their affirmative defenses. Id.

13

Defendants now argue that “Plaintiff is aware of the factual bases for Defendants’

14

affirmative defenses by virtue of its responses to written discovery, the deposition

15

testimony of its 30(b)(6) witness, the testimony of Robinson, the testimony of Plaintiff’s

16

experts, and by the report and testimony of its expert.” Dkt. #89 at 4. Defendants’

17
18

interrogatory response was not a model of clarity, leaving Plaintiff with the task of

19

sorting through which cited evidence supported which affirmative defense, despite the

20

fact that Plaintiff specifically asked Defendants to separate out their affirmative defenses

21

and the factual support for each. See Dkt. #90-3 at 3-4. However, the Court believes

22
23
24

that Plaintiff is and was capable of sorting through the cited evidence, and that denying
Defendants the opportunity to argue their affirmative defenses is too harsh a punishment

25

for what is essentially a dispute over the adequacy of a discovery response.

26

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine is DENIED. This decision replaces the

27

Court’s prior decision.

28
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF AND ORDER AMENDING ORDER
ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 2

1
2

2. The Court has reviewed Defendants’ response to this Motion and declines to change its
prior Order. This Motion remains DENIED.

3

3. The Court previously denied this Motion as moot given its ruling on Plaintiff’s first

4

motion in limine. Now that the Court has changed its ruling above, the Court finds that

5
6
7

this Motion is properly deferred to trial. Plaintiff argues that evidence of a lighter or
pipe found at the scene of the fire will be more prejudicial than probative under FRE 403

8

and that Defendants have no factual support for their contention that such caused the

9

fire. Dkt. #70 at 11. The Court agrees that references to a “crack pipe” would violate

10
11
12

FRE 403. However, Defendants may be permitted to reference a lighter or smoking
materials without prejudicing the jury, and such evidence may be relevant to

13

Defendants’ affirmative defenses. To the extent that Defendants are unable to support

14

arguments about the lighter or smoking material with factual support, the Court and the

15

Plaintiff can adequately deal with that issue at trial. This Motion is DEFERRED. This

16

decision replaces the Court’s prior decision.

17
18

4. The Court has reviewed Defendants’ response to this Motion and declines to change its

19

prior Order. Defendants argue that the reference to Way’s report as a rebuttal report to

20

Barovsky’s rebuttal report was a “typographical error.” Dkt. #89 at 7. The Court does

21

not agree given the timing of the reports. Defendants fail to address the timeliness issue

22
23
24
25

or Plaintiff’s argument that Way gained an unfair tactical advantage by being able to
review, consider and rebut Barovsky’s rebuttal report.

Accordingly, this Motion

remains GRANTED.

26
27
28
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF AND ORDER AMENDING ORDER
ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 3

1

5. Because Defendants are now permitted to argue their affirmative defenses, including a

2

failure to mitigate, and for the reasons stated previously, the Court DENIES this Motion.

3

This decision replaces the Court’s prior decision.

4
5
6
7

6. The Court has reviewed Defendants’ response to this Motion and declines to change its
prior Order. Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to give specific examples of what
evidence should be excluded and that the Court will be best suited to evaluate this issue

8

at trial.

9

preclude Defendants from “referencing any past successes in defending similar claims.”

10
11
12

Dkt. #89 at 8-9. The Court disagrees and finds that Plaintiff is only asking to

Dkt. #70 at 13. References to the outcomes of past lawsuits are more prejudicial than
probative under FRE 403. Accordingly, this Motion remains GRANTED.

13

7. The Court has reviewed Defendants’ response to this Motion and declines to change its

14

prior Order. Defendants have no support for their argument, and Plaintiff’s request is

15

reasonable. This Motion remains GRANTED.

16

8. The Court has reviewed Defendants’ response to this Motion and declines to change its

17
18

prior Order. Defendants appear to believe that Plaintiff will introduce evidence during

19

its opening statement, whereas Plaintiff simply requests the ability to address anticipated

20

defenses. Plaintiff is permitted to discuss what it believes Defendants will argue at trial

21

but is not permitted to present evidence. Defendants are free to object during Plaintiff’s

22
23
24
25
26

opening statement if they believe Plaintiff has violated a rule. This Motion remains
DEFERRED.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS:

27
28
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF AND ORDER AMENDING ORDER
ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 4

1
2

(1) Defendants’ Motion for Relief from the Court’s Order on Motions in Limine (Dkt.
#86) is GRANTED.

3

(2) Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine are GRANTED, DENIED, AND DEFERRED as

4

stated above. Defendants’ Motions in Limine remain undisturbed. This Order

5
6

amends the Court’s prior Order (Dkt. #85).

7
8

DATED this 5th day of July 2017.

9
10
11
12

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF AND ORDER AMENDING ORDER
ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 5