Vaughn v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

539 F.Supp.3d 577

Bobbie VAUGHN

v.HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:19-cv-00293

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division.

Signed May 17, 2021

Jerome Harold Moroux, Broussard & David, Lafayette, LA, for Bobbie Vaughn.

Lindsay Graham Faulkner, Kathryn Theriot Trew, Peter J. Wanek, Wanek Kirsch Davies, New Orleans, LA, for Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.

RULING

TERRY A. DOUGHTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is an action sounding in tort for personal injuries and damages brought by the plaintiff, Bobbie Vaughn ("Vaughn" or "Plaintiff"), against the defendant, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. ("Hobby Lobby" or "Defendant") under La. R.S. 9:2800.6, Louisiana's Merchant Liability Act. Pending here is an omnibus Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 33] filed by Vaughn. Hobby Lobby has filed an opposition [Doc. No. 48]. Vaughn has filed a reply to the opposition [Doc. No. 69].

For the following reasons, Vaughn's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This lawsuit arises out of an accident that occurred on December 2, 2017, at the Hobby Lobby located in Lafayette, Louisiana. Vaughn contends that as she was shopping in the store, Hobby Lobby employees (including the store manager) were stocking the top shelves of the aisle adjacent to the aisle where she was shopping.

As the employees were stocking items, they allegedly pushed picture frames located on the top of the shelf, causing several frames to fall onto the other side and strike Vaughn.

Vaughn asserts that she has suffered severe and life altering injuries as a result of this accident. Specifically, she asserts that she has suffered significant injuries to her neck, including radiating pain into her right arm, and, further, she has suffered from debilitating headaches and anxiety since this accident.

On November 20, 2018, Vaughn filed suit against Hobby Lobby in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana. On March 7, 2019, the lawsuit was removed to this Court [Doc. No. 1].

Vaughn presents twenty-four (24) subparts in her motion in limine for the Court's consideration. The Court will consider each in turn.

II. Applicable Law and Analysis

A. Applicable Law

1. Motions in Limine

A motion in limine is a motion made prior to trial for the purpose of prohibiting opposing counsel from mentioning the existence of, alluding to, or offering evidence on matters so highly prejudicial to the moving party that a timely motion to strike or an instruction by the court to the jury to disregard the offending matter cannot overcome its prejudicial influence on the jurors’ minds. Mathis v. Pinnacle Entm't, Inc. , CIV.A. 11-2199, 2014 WL 2880217, at *5 (W.D. La. June 23, 2014) (quoting Bocalbos v. Nat'l W. Life Ins. Co. , 162 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 1998) ).

2. Relevancy Under the Federal Rules of Evidence

The essential prerequisite of admissibility is relevance. United States v. Hall , 653 F.2d 1002, 1005 (5^th Cir. 1981) (Citing FED. R. EVID. 402 ). Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. FED. R. EVID. 401. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FED. R. EVID. 402. Implicit in the above definition are two distinct requirements: (1) the evidence must be probative of the proposition it is offered to prove, and (2) the proposition to be proved must be one that is of consequence to the determination of the action. Hall , 653 F.2d at 1005. Whether a proposition is of consequence to the determination of the action is a question that is governed by the substantive law. Simply stated, the proposition to be proved must be part of the hypothesis governing the case a matter that is in issue, or probative of a matter that is in issue, in the litigation. Id.

Moreover, pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court may exclude evidence that satisfies the above requirements for relevancy "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. " ‘Unfair prejudice’ within its context means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." FED R. EVID. 403, 1972 Advisory Committee Note.

B. Analysis

1. Vaughn's family's history of mental illness

Vaughn objects to any evidence of mental illness, including depression, that has been experienced by anyone related to her. She asserts that Hobby Lobby may seek to introduce evidence of such mental illness in an effort to show her present anxiety and associated mental health issues were not caused by this accident but were in reality genetic. She argues that the introduction of evidence regarding a family member's medical history would be improper particularly where there has been no medical opinion offered in support of the contention that, because a family member had mental illness, then more probably than not a related person's mental illness is genetic, rather than caused by an accident. She states this would serve only to prejudice the jury, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 401 - 403.

Vaughn argues, moreover, that Louisiana law would prohibit the use of a non-party's medical history and medical records in this case because the use of such information would violate the health care provider-patient privilege, which is codified in Louisiana Code of Evidence article 510 and La R.S. 13:3715.1. As this request seeks to introduce evidence of the medical information pertaining to non-parties, the non-party patients must either consent or appear at a rule to show cause why the medical records should be produced before any production can be had.

Hobby Lobby responds that this request for exclusion is overly broad inasmuch as Vaughn claims that, as a result of the subject incident, she suffers from: 1) Post-traumatic headaches and migraines; 2) a traumatic brain injury which causes her to experience word-finding difficulty and decreases her ability to concentrate/focus; 3) Post-traumatic stress disorder, leading to panic attacks/anxiety and night terrors; 4) neck pain; and 5) shoulder pain. Since Vaughn claims that she suffers several mental conditions as a result of the accident, Hobby Lobby asserts that argument of a family history of mental illness is highly relevant to the issue of medical causation. Specifically, the mental health history of Vaughn's family is relevant to whether her mental conditions were caused by the incident or were pre-existing.

Hobby Lobby argues that, in the case of In Re Accutane Products Liability Litigation , 8:05-cv-926-T-30TBM, 2006 WL 1281598 at *n.8 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2006), the Middle District of Florida noted "the court does not dispute that the psychological or psychiatric history of the immediate family members may be relevant to the theory of alternative causation the Defendants propose. Indeed, as Defendants note, the court has permitted the mental and emotional health history of plaintiff family members in Bishop v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. , Case No. 8:02-cv-1533-T-30TBM."

Vaughn replies that Hobby Lobby has offered no medical opinion that her anxiety, PTSD, and other accident-related mental illnesses are causally related to a history of family mental illness. Vaugh additionally argues that the Florida case relied on by Hobby Lobby is not only non-binding, but the district court actually ruled against permitting the familial history of psychiatric illness to be admitted, citing a Wisconsin law that parallels Louisiana's statute prohibiting disclosure of non-party's medical records. Vaughn concludes that Hobby Lobby should not be permitted to rely on the medical histories of non-parties to advance its medically unsubstantiated theory of causation.

The Court finds that Hobby Lobby has produced no medical opinion suggesting that, just because someone has a family history of mental illness, they will acquire that mental illness. Therefore, Hobby Lobby has not shown how evidence of Vaughn's family history of mental illness could be relevant to the issue of causation. Further, the Court is reluctant to place the medical history of non-parties at issue. Finally, the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the likelihood of confusing the issues or wasting time at trial.

Accordingly, Subpart (1) to Vaughn's motion in limine seeking the exclusion of any evidence of mental illness, including depression, that has been experienced by anyone related to her, is GRANTED, and that evidence is EXCLUDED.

2. Evidence of Vaughn's Husband's Disability

Vaught states that her husband was injured a number of years ago in a work-related accident and was rendered disabled as a result of the same. However, he is not making a loss of consortium claim and is not a party to this lawsuit. Therefore, Vaughn argues that any facts or evidence related to the nature of his disability, or the circumstances leading up to his disability, have little to no probative value and are therefore irrelevant. Vaughn concludes that no mention should be made with respect to her husband's status as being disabled nor should any mention be made with respect to the circumstances which caused the said disability, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 401 - 403.

Hobby Lobby responds that it is agreeable to the exclusion of facts and circumstances of Vaughn's husband's workplace injury. However, Hobby Lobby objects to exclusion of the fact that Vaughn's husband is disabled. Although Vaughn has claimed mental conditions including anxiety and panic attacks as a result of this incident, Vaughn's mother testified in her deposition that following Vaughn's husband's disability, additional stress was put on Vaughn because she had to "start...