United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before
the Court are ten motions in limine filed by both Plaintiff
Mario Salazar (the âPlaintiffâ) and Defendants Arturo Flores
(âFloresâ) and Lily Transportation (together, the
âDefendantsâ). Each of the motions in limine was fully
briefed on or before August 13, 2019. On August 27, 2019, the
Court held a final pretrial conference and heard oral
argument on all of the pending motions in limine. The
Court's rulings are as follows.
I.
Background
On May
20, 2014, the Plaintiff was parked at a rest stop in Wikieup,
Arizona, when a semi-truck operated by Flores collided into
the Plaintiff's vehicle. (Doc. 1 at 8) The Plaintiff was
injured by the collision and incurred medical costs. (Doc. 1
at 9) The semi-truck was owned by Flores' employer Lily
Transportation. (Doc. 1 at 8) The Plaintiff initiated this
lawsuit seeking to recover damages on claims for negligence,
negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring, among other
claims. (Doc. 1 at 8-12)
II.
Analysis
A.
Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of
Defendant Arturo Flores' Employment with Lily
Transportation (Doc. 55)
The
Defendants seek to exclude evidence related to Flores'
employment with Lily Transportation beyond the plain fact
that Flores was employed by Lily Transportation at the time
of the collision. (Doc. 55 at 1) Specifically, the Defendants
seek to exclude evidence of Flores' “driver's
qualification file, ” personnel file, employment
records, or any of Flores' deposition testimony regarding
Lily Transportation's safety or training policies under
Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 402 and 403.
(Doc. 55 at 2) The Defendants admit that Lily Transportation
is vicariously liable for the actions of Flores, and, on
March 18, 2019, the Court granted the Defendants' motion
for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiff's negligent
entrustment claim. (Doc. 55 at 1; Doc. 51) The Defendants
argue that no other additional evidence related to
Flores' employment is relevant.
In
response, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants'
motion is premature, as the Court should decide whether
Flores' employment file is relevant during trial. (Doc.
117 at 2) The Plaintiff also argues that evidence related to
Flores' employment with Lily Transportation is relevant
to the Plaintiff's claims for vicarious liability and
negligence. (Doc. 117 at 2-3) Thus, the Plaintiff argues that
the motion should be denied.
The
Court finds that excluding all evidence related to
Flores' employment with Lily Transportation is premature
at this time. There are several instances in which the
information available in Flores' employment file may be
relevant to the issues in this case. For example, the
Plaintiff's negligence claim requires the Plaintiff to
prove that Flores breached a duty that ultimately caused the
Plaintiff's injuries. Issues related to Flores'
employment with Lily Transportation could provide valuable
insight into whether a breach occurred. Thus, the Court finds
that evidence of Flores' employment with Lily
Transportation is relevant and admissible under FREs 402 and
403. Accordingly, the motion will be denied without prejudice
to renewed specific objections.
B.
Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of
Plaintiff's Future Medical Care
(Doc. 56)
The
Defendants seek to exclude testimony from witnesses Dr.
Maryann Shannon and Dr. Raimundo Leon on the topic of the
Plaintiff's future medical care. (Doc. 56 at 1) The
Defendants argue that Dr. Shannon and Dr. Leon's opinions
provide speculative conclusions about care that the Plaintiff
“may” receive in the future, and the speculative
conclusions do not rise to the reasonably probable standard
required for their admissibility. (Doc. 56 at 2-3) In
response, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is premature,
and the Court should address specific objections to Dr.
Shannon and Dr. Leon's testimonies at trial. (Doc. 123 at
3) The Plaintiff argues that the expert reports at issue were
disclosed when the Plaintiff was actively seeking medical
treatment. (Doc. 123 at 3) The Plaintiff also argues that the
Defendants' attack on Dr. Leon's opinion does not
consider supplemental reports issued by Dr. Leon after the
Plaintiff's initial expert disclosure, and the
Defendants' attack on Dr. Shannon's testimony solely
relies on her use of the word “may” throughout
her expert report. (Doc. 123 at 2-3) Thus, the Plaintiff
argues that the motion should be denied.
Ariziona
law prohibits juries from relying on speculation to make
decisions about future medical expenses. Saide v.
Stanton, 659 P.2d 35, 36 (1983) (stating “Arizona
courts have consistently followed the rule that in order for
a trial court to properly submit the question of future
medical expenses to the jury, the need for future care must
be reasonably probable and there must be some evidence of the
probable nature and cost of the future treatment.”) The
Court finds that the expert reports provided by Dr. Shannon
and Dr. Leon provide opinions that demonstrate that the
Plaintiff requires care that is reasonably probable to be
incurred in the future. For example, Dr. Shannon's
opinion states that “[f]uture medical needs may include
further intermittent sympathectomy and/or injections of the
cervical spine, ” and “the need for physical
therapy would be approximately 3 weeks per year.” (Doc.
56-1 at 8) Similarly, Dr. Leon's report stated that
further treatment would be necessary in the form of repeat
MRIs and electrodiagnostic studies. (Doc. 56-2 at 11) The
Court finds that any issues related to testimony by Dr.
Shannon or Dr. Leon are more effectively addressed through
specific objections at trial. Accordingly, the motion will be
denied without prejudice to renewed specific objections.
C.
Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of
the Costs of Plaintiff's Future Medical Care (Doc.
57)
The
Defendants seek to exclude testimony from witness Dr. Maryann
Shannon regarding the costs of the Plaintiff's future
medical care. (Doc. 57 at 1) Dr. Shannon estimated that the
Plaintiff would need a spinal cord stimulator procedure
performed, and the cost of that procedure is approximately
$100, 000. (Doc. 57 at 1) Dr. Shannon also opined that the
Plaintiff would need the spinal cord generators changed every
five years. (Doc. 57 at 1) The Defendants argue that any
evidence of the Plaintiff's future medical costs should
be excluded because Dr. Shannon's estimation was not
reduced to present value. (Doc. 57 at 2) The Defendant argues
that future damages that have not been reduced to present
value are prejudicial under FRE 403. (Doc. 57 at 3) In
response, the Plaintiff argues that Arizona law does not
require that damages estimations be reduced to present value.
(Doc. 122 at 2) The Plaintiff also argues that Dr.
...