Apodaca v. Eaton Corp

1

EDGAR GUERRERO APODACA, Plaintiff(s), v. EATON CORPORATION, Defendant(s).

No. 2:20-CV-01064-TL

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

February 27, 2023

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE

TANA LIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on the Parties' motions in limine. Dkt. Nos. 101, 103. Having considered the relevant record and the Parties' oral argument, the Court hereby GRANTS in part, DENIES in part, and RESERVES RULING in part the motions in limine as explained below.

I. Background

This is a product liability case arising out of injuries that Plaintiffs David Fitzpatrick and Ryan McDade sustained from a December 17, 2019, arc flash explosion from a bus plug, an industrial electrical equipment manufactured by Defendant Eaton Corporation. Dkt. No. 25 at 35. Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1.

The case is scheduled for a jury trial beginning on March 6 2023. Dkt. No. 41 (trial schedule order). In advance of trial, the Parties filed their respective motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 101, 103) and have responded to each other's motions (Dkt. Nos. 116, 118). The Court shared its preliminary rulings on the motions in limine and heard the Parties' oral argument during the pretrial conference held on February 24, 2023. Dkt. No. 135. The motions are now fully briefed, argued, and before the Court for its consideration.

II. Legal Standard

“A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence in a particular area . . . so that admissibility is settled before attempted use of the evidence before the jury.” United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). While the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) do not explicitly permit motions in limine, they are a part of a “district court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984). A motion in limine is ordinarily granted only if the evidence at issue is inadmissible on all potential grounds; if not, the evidentiary ruling is better deferred until trial, to allow for questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice to be resolved with the appropriate context. E.g., United States v. Sims, 550 F.Supp.3d 907, 912 (D. Nev. 2021). A motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence. E.g., Westboro Condo. Ass'n v. Country Cas. Ins. Co., No. C21-685, 2023 WL 1928170, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2023). A court's ruling on a pre-trial motion in limine is preliminary and can be revisited at trial based on the facts and evidence as they are actually presented. See, e.g., City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting a court may change its in limine ruling at trial if testimony brings unanticipated facts to the court's attention).

III. Discussion

Because many of the Parties' motions in limine reference Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 401, 402, and 403, the Court lays out the three rules here:

FRE 401. Test for Relevant Evidence

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

FRE 402. General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:

• the United States Constitution;

• a federal statute;

• these rules; or

• other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.

Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

FRE 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

In short, evidence is generally admissible at trial if it is relevant, unless the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by such unwanted dangers as unfair prejudice or misleading the jury. “Unfair prejudice” means “the possibility that the evidence will excite the jury to make a decision on the basis of a factor unrelated to the issues properly before it.” Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire Co., 853 F.2d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1988)).

A. Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine

Plaintiffs bring 47 motions in limine. Dkt. No. 103. Defendant does not oppose 19 of the motions and opposes the rest. Dkt. No. 118. The Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' motions are as follows:

#

Motion

Ruling

Reasoning

Exclusion of Evidence Regarding Insurance

Granted

Stipulated

All Parties Should be Required to Provide Twenty-Four Hours' Notice to Opposing Counsel of Their Intent to Call Witnesses at the Time of Trial

Granted

Stipulated, with the clarification that all witnesses to be called must be disclosed to opposing counsel at or before 9 a.m. the day before the witnesses are called. See also Defendants' #8.

Exclusion of All Non-Party Witnesses from the Courtroom During the Course of Trial

Granted /

Denied^[1]

Stipulated as to nonparty lay witnesses.

Expert witnesses will be permitted to attend as a general rule, but the Court is willing to entertain witness-specific motions at trial, if raised. See FRE 615(c); see also W. Towboat Co. v. Vigor Marine, LLC, No. C20-416, 2021 WL 2641521, at *8 (w.D. Wash. June 25, 2021) (noting the “low bar” for establishing the FRE 615(c) exemption for “expert witnesses that need to hear the testimony of factual witnesses in order to properly provide opinion evidence” (quoting Stevenson v. Holland, 504 F.Supp.3d 1107 (E.D. Cal. 2020)).

Prohibition for a Witness to Comment on the Credibility of Other Witnesses

Granted

Stipulated

Prohibition of Display of Any Exhibit or Demonstrative Evidence until the Exhibit Has Been Shown to Opposing Counsel and Permission by the Court Has Been Obtained to Use Any Such Exhibit

Granted

Stipulated

Duty to Inform Witnesses of Motion In Limine Orders Relevant to Them

Granted

Stipulated

Exclusion of Non-Disclosed

Witnesses

Granted

Stipulated

Prohibition of References to Litigation Strategy, Tactics, or Motions

Granted

Stipulated. See also Defendants' #7.

Prohibition of Evidence Offered by Eaton To Support a “State of the Art” Defense

Granted

Stipulated

Exclusion of References to Settlement Negotiations

Granted

Stipulated. See also Defendants' #6.

Prohibition of Evidence Offered by Eaton Relating to Plaintiff Apodaca's Psychological Injuries (Or Lack Thereof)

Granted

Stipulated

Preclusion of Eaton's Expert, Mr. Erga, Offering Medical Opinions

Granted

Stipulated

Eaton's Expert, Mr. Erga, Lacks Foundation to Allege That Washington State Labor & Industries Issued a Violation Notice to Cochran

Granted /

Denied

Stipulated as to the fact that no violation notice was ultimately issued by L&I.

Granted as to L&I's preliminary or draft citation, but denied as to Mr. Erga's opinion as to whether a citation would have been appropriate, pursuant to FRE 403 balancing.

Prohibition of Any Evidence Concerning Intervention Plaintiff's Immigration Status

Granted

Stipulated

Exclusion of Any Evidence Concerning Mr.

Fitzpatrick's Prior Marriages, Including The Number Of Past Marriages

Granted

Stipulated

Exclusion of Any Evidence Concerning Mr.

Fitzpatrick's Prior L&I Claims, Including Claim Regarding Knee Injury

Granted

Stipulated

Exclusion of Any Evidence Concerning the Financial Status of Any Party

Granted

Stipulated.

But Defendant may be permitted to respond appropriately if Plaintiffs “open the door” to evidence of financial hardship or related worry or distress from the subject incident.

Prohibition of Any Evidence Concerning the Effect a Recovery Would Have On the Income Tax or Other Taxable Implications of Any Part

Granted

Stipulated

Exclusion of Any Argument That Noneconomic Damages Should be Discounted to Present Net Value

Granted

Stipulated

Exclusion of All Testimony or References to Available Witnesses Not Called to Testify at Trial

Granted

Stipulated

Exclusion of Any Expert Report and/or File, Note, Memoranda, C.V., Deposition/Testimony List or Rate Sheet Being Admitted Into Evidence

Granted / Reserved

Stipulated as to such materials being admitted as direct evidence.

Reserved as to an expert's reliance on such materials as illustrative exhibits.

Exclusion of Laws, Regulations, Scholarly Journals/Articles, Secondary Sources

Granted / Reserved

Stipulated as to such materials being admitted as direct evidence.

Reserved as to an expert's reliance on such materials. See, e.g., RCW 7.72.050(1) (“Evidence of custom in the product seller's industry, technological feasibility or that the product was or was not, in compliance with nongovernmental standards or with legislative regulatory standards or administrative regulatory standards, whether relating to design, construction or performance of the product or to warnings or instructions as to its use may be considered by the trier of fact.”); RCW 5.40.050 (“A breach of a duty imposed by statute, ordinance, or administrative rule shall not be considered negligence per se, but may be considered by the trier of fact as evidence of negligence . . . .”).

Preclusion of Documents Not Produced In Discovery and Witnesses Whose Scope of Testimony Was Not Disclosed

Granted /

Denied

Unopposed as to documents.

Denied as to witnesses. Plaintiffs' arguments mirror their motion for sanctions, which was denied. Plaintiffs do not raise any new grounds for excluding the allegedly late-disclosed Eaton employees on Defendant's witness list.

Exclusion of...