Fulton v. Soh

1

RASEAN FULTON, Plaintiff v. FRANCIS CHEDJOU SOH, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-01268

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

November 12, 2024

MEMORANDUM

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presently before the Court are five motions in limine filed by Defendant Francis Chedjou Soh (“Soh”). (Doc. 96; Doc. 97; Doc. 98; Doc. 99; Doc. 100). Plaintiff Rasean Fulton (“Fulton”) initiated this action by filing a complaint against Gary Newkirk (“Newkirk”) Greyhound Lines Inc. (“Greyhound”), and Soh in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings on October 5, 2020. (Doc. 1). The case was removed to this Court on November 11, 2020. (Doc. 1). Fulton filed the operative amended complaint on March 4, 2021. (Doc. 18). The motions in limine have been fully briefed and are now ripe for disposition.^[1] (Doc. 96; Doc. 97; Doc. 98; Doc. 99; Doc. 100).

I. Background and Procedural History

The following background and history are limited to the immediately relevant circumstances of the pending motions. This case arises from a tractor trailer collision that occurred on April 23, 2020. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 18, 19, 20). The collision involved a tractor trailer operated by Soh that collided with a Greyhound bus. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 18, 19, 20). Fulton, a passenger on the Greyhound bus, alleges he sustained various injuries as a result of the collision. (Doc. 18, ¶ 20). Fulton claims that the accident occurred due to Defendants' recklessness and negligence. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 28, 29).

On October 7, 2024, Soh filed five motions in limine. (Doc. 96; Doc. 97; Doc. 98; Doc. 99; Doc. 100). On October 8, 2024, Soh filed a brief in support of each motion. (Doc. 101; Doc. 102; Doc. 103; Doc. 104; Doc. 105). In the instant motions in limine, Soh seeks to preclude Fulton from introducing evidence on causation and damages at trial, evidence of insurance, evidence of wage loss, and from presenting undisclosed witnesses and/or evidence. (Doc. 96; Doc. 97; Doc. 98; Doc. 100). Soh also seeks to limit or preclude evidence or testimony as to Fulton's alleged medical expenses. (Doc. 99). On October 28, 2024, Fulton filed three briefs in opposition, opposing Soh's first, second, and fourth motions in limine which seek to preclude Fulton from introducing evidence on causation and damages at trial, from presenting undisclosed witnesses and/or evidence, and to limit or preclude evidence or testimony as to Fulton's alleged medical expenses. (Doc. 96; Doc. 97; Doc. 99; Doc. 107; Doc. 108; Doc. 109). On November 4, 2024, the Court held a final pre-trial conference with the parties, during which the parties argued the outstanding motions in limine. (Doc. 111). Accordingly, each motion is ripe for the Court's disposition.

II. Standard of Review

The Court is vested with broad inherent authority to manage its cases, which carries with it the discretion to rule on motions in limine prior to trial. SeeLuce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984); In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 260 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom., Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (noting that the court exercises its discretion to rule in limine on evidentiary issues “in appropriate cases”). Courts may exercise this discretion in order to ensure that juries are not exposed to unfairly prejudicial, confusing or irrelevant evidence. United States v. Romano, 849 F.2d 812, 815 (3d Cir. 1988). Courts may also do so in order to “narrow the evidentiary issues for trial and to eliminate unnecessary trial interruptions.” Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. Of Educ., 913 F.2d 1064, 1069 (3d Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). In considering motions in limine, which call upon the court to engage in preliminary evidentiary rulings under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court begins by recognizing that these “evidentiary rulings [on motions in limine] are subject to the trial judge's discretion and are therefore reviewed only for abuse of discretion .... Additionally, application of the balancing test under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 will not be disturbed unless it is ‘arbitrary and irrational.'” Ely v. Cabot Oil &Gas Corp., No. 3:09-CV-2284, 2016 WL 454817, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2016) (citing Abrams v. Lightolier Inc., 50 F.3d 1204, 1213 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted)); see Bernardsville Bd. Of Educ. v. J.H., 42 F.3d 149, 161 (3d Cir. 1994) (reviewing in limine rulings for abuse of discretion).

The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that relevant evidence is generally admissible.^[2]Fed. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is “relevant” if its existence simply has “any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed.R.Evid. 401(a)-(b). However, relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. The balancing test under Rule 403 provides as follows:

[t]he 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.

Fed. R. Evid. 403.

III. Discussion

A. Soh's First Motion in Limine

Soh's first motion in limine seeks to preclude Fulton from presenting evidence on causation and damages at trial and, consequently, to dismiss Fulton's claim with prejudice.^[3](Doc. 96). According to soh, in support of causation and damages, Fulton has only “produced a single expert report, months late, four years into the litigation, in violation of the Court's orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[.]” (Doc. 101, at 1). soh explains that this report, which is authored by Fulton's treating physician Dr. Apazidis, is “a narrative report by one of [Fulton's] treating physicians and identify the physician as a witness at trial.”

(Doc. 96-4, at 18; Doc. 101, at 4). Therefore, Soh argues that this report, as well as any other evidence on causation and damages, should be precluded. (Doc. 101, at 1-4).

Fulton responds that Soh seeks an “extreme sanction” for Fulton's “harmless, and very limited, noncompliance with the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A).” (Doc. 107, at 2). Fulton also avers that both his treating physicians, Dr. Apazidis and Dr. Avshalumov, neither of whom were timely identified as expert witnesses, should be permitted to offer expert testimony regarding Fulton's injuries because their opinions originated in the course of their treatment of Fulton. (Doc. 107, at 2). Furthermore, he argues that both doctors should be able to offer lay testimony regarding Fulton's diagnosis and treatment because they served as his treating physicians. (Doc. 107, at 2).

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) requires that parties disclose the identity of any witness who may testify at trial as an expert pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Martin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 3:06CV2238, 2007 WL 2782263, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2007). “[I]f a party fails to provide the information required by Rule 26(a) and (e), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) states, ‘the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.'” Sabol v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 309 F.R.D. 282, 286 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1) (emphasis added)). In consideration of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, the Third Circuit has set forth the following factors to determine whether evidence should be excluded for failure to comply with discovery duties:

1) The prejudice or surprise of the party against whom the excluded evidence would have been admitted; 2) The ability of the party to cure that prejudice; 3) The extent to which allowing the evidence would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case or other cases in the court; and 4) Bad faith or willfulness in failing to comply with a court order or discovery obligation.

Nicholas v. Pa. State Univ., 227 F.3d 133, 148 (3d Cir. 2000).

Here, the Court ordered that expert discovery be completed by July 30, 2024. (Doc. 91). Despite that deadline, Fulton did not submit Dr. Apazidis' expert report and or identify him as an expert witness on October 4, 2024. (Doc. 101, at 4). After the filing of Soh's motion in limine, Fulton produced another late expert report authored by Dr. Avshalumov on October 25, 2024. (Doc. 106, at 10). When asked by the Court about these late filings during the parties' final pre-trial conference, Fulton's counsel was unable to justify why these expert reports were filed so far beyond the deadlines set in this case. “G]iven the lack of a sufficient explanation for the belated submission, the Court is compelled to address whether the extreme sanction of exclusion of such testimony is warranted under the circumstances.” Sheetz v. WalMart Stores, E., L.P., No. 4:15-CV-02210, 2017 WL 5625768, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2017) (stating also that “sanctions may be appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 where the failure to timely produce the expert report of a testifying witness is neither substantially justified nor harmless.”).

The Court has discretion to reject expert testimony. Jaasma v. Shell Oil Co., 412 F.3d 501, 513 (3d Cir. 2005). It acts within its discretion so long as the decision is not “arbitrary, fanciful or clearly unreasonable.” Stecyk v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 295 F.3d 408, 412 (3d Cir. 2002). Further, the Court has discretion to review compliance...