“The preponderance standard ensures that before admitting evidence, the court will have found it more likely than not that the technical issues and policy concerns addressed by the Federal Rules of Evidence have been afforded due consideration.”
How later courts described this case
- “The preponderance standard ensures that before admitting evidence, the court will have found it more likely than not that the technical issues and policy concerns addressed by the Federal Rules of Evidence have been afforded due consideration.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
REGINALD ROBERT CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 18-11632
JAMIE MAURICE, et al. SECTION: “G”(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendants Jamie Maurice (“Maurice”) and Knight Transportation,
Inc.’s (“Knight Transportation”) (collectively, “Defendants”) “Omnibus Motion to in Limine.”1
In the motion, Defendants move the Court to issue an Order excluding fourteen various categories
of evidence.2 Plaintiff Reginald Robert (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion.3 Oral argument was held
on the motion via video conference on July 15, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.4 Considering the motion, the
memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the
motion in part and denies it in part.
I. Background
On November 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Maurice and
Knight Transportation in this Court, seeking recovery for injuries and property damage Plaintiff
allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle collision.5 According to the Complaint, on August 9, 2017,
Plaintiff was allegedly operating a vehicle on US 90 while an 18-wheeler driven by Maurice was
1 Rec. Doc. 107.
2 Rec. Doc. 108.
3 Rec. Doc. 104-1 at 6.
4 Rec. Doc. 130.
5 Rec. Doc. 1.
attempting to merge onto US 90 from the onramp.6 Plaintiff alleges that Maurice negligently
failed to keep a proper lookout and abruptly merged into the third lane of US 90 where the
Plaintiff was traveling, causing a collision between the two vehicles.7 Plaintiff alleges that the
vehicle being driven by Maurice was owned by Knight Transportation, and that Maurice was
within the course and scope of his employment with Knight Transportation, when he collided
with the vehicle containing Plaintiff.8 Accordingly, Plaintiff brings a negligence claim against
Maurice and Knight Transportation, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.9
On September 26, 2019, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.10 As a result, Plaintiff’s cause of action alleging the direct negligence of Knight
Transportation in the form of negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, training and supervision
was dismissed, with prejudice.11 The Court’s order did not affect Plaintiff’s remaining cause of
action against Maurice for negligence and Knight Transportation for vicarious liability for the
alleged actions of Maurice.12 On April 15, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
and/or Dismiss Under FRCP 12(b)(6) Defendant’s Listed Defense of ‘Intentional Acts’ of the
Plaintiff as untimely filed.13 Also on April 15, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on Medical Causation as untimely filed.14 Due to the COVID-19
6 Id. at 3.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 5.
10 Rec. Doc. 26.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Rec. Doc. 99.
14 Rec. Doc. 100.
pandemic, the Court continued the trial to April 26, 2021.15
On May 12, 2020, Defendants filed the instant “Omnibus Motion to in Limine.”16 On May
26, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the instant motion.17 On June 1, 2020, with leave of
Court, Defendants filed a reply brief.18 On July 15, 2020, with leave of Court, Plaintiff filed a
sur-reply brief.19 Oral argument was held on the motion via video conference on July 15, 2020 at
10:00 a.m.20
II. Parties’ Arguments
A. Defendants’ Arguments in Support of the Motion
Defendants move the Court to exclude the introduction of fourteen various categories of
evidence.21
1. Financial Positions of the Parties
First, Defendants argue the Court should exclude any argument about or any reference to
the relative financial positions of Defendants and Plaintiff.22 Defendants contend that this
evidence is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.23
15 Rec. Doc. 101.
16 Rec. Doc. 107.
17 Rec. Doc. 108.
18 Rec. Doc. 118.
19 Rec. Doc. 129.
20 Rec. Doc. 130.
21 Rec. Doc. 108.
22 Rec. Doc. 108-1 at 3.
23 Id. at 3–4.
2. Lay Testimony Regarding Physical Condition of Plaintiff
Second, Defendants assert the Court should exclude any lay evidence or lay testimony
regarding the physical condition or work capacity of Plaintiff.24 Defendants contend that lay
witnesses are incompetent to testify to matters of a medical nature and such testimony is
hearsay.25
3. Payment of Property Damage
Third, Defendants contend the Court should exclude any evidence or testimony related to
Defendants’ payment of property damage concerning the Toyota Tundra driven by Plaintiff at the
time of the accident.26 Defendants argue evidence of this payment should be excluded under
Federal Rule of Evidence 408.27
4. Future Damages not Reduced to Present Value
Fourth, Defendants argue the Court should exclude any evidence of Plaintiff’s future
damages unless reduced to present value.28
5. Punitive or Exemplary Damages
Fifth, Defendants assert the Court should exclude any reference to punitive or exemplary
damages because such damages are not available in this matter.29
24 Id. at 4.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 5.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 6.
29 Id.
6. Unrelated Claims or Lawsuits
Sixth, Defendants contend the Court should exclude evidence of any unrelated claims or
lawsuits involving Defendants.30 Defendants assert that a party seeking to introduce evidence of
other complaints or claims must establish a substantial similarity between the cases.31 Absent
such a predicate, Defendants argue such evidence is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.32
7. Settlement Negotiations
Seventh, Defendants argue the Court should exclude any mention, direct or indirect, of the
fact of settlement negotiations and/or their content.33 Defendants argue such evidence is irrelevant
and unfairly prejudicial.34
8. Mention of Financial Hardship of Plaintiff
Eighth, Defendants assert the Court should exclude any mention that Plaintiff is under
financial hardship.35 Defendants argue such evidence is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.36
9. Lay Testimony Regarding Information Provided to Plaintiff by a Doctor
Ninth, Defendants contend the Court should exclude any testimony regarding what Plaintiff
has been told by any doctor or other medical witness about his physical and medical condition
except for such statements coming from the doctors themselves.37 Defendants assert that any other
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 7.
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id.
testimony on this issue would be hearsay.38
10. Conscience of the Community or Golden Rule Arguments
Tenth, Defendants move the Court to exclude any improper argument that the jury is the
conscience of the community or similar “Golden Rule” arguments.39 Defendants argue such
evidence is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.40
11. Health Problems or Medical Conditions Plaintiff May Incur in the Future
Eleventh, Defendants argue the Court should exclude evidence regarding health problems
or medical conditions Plaintiff may incur in the future.41 Defendants assert such evidence is the
province of a medical expert.42
12. Prior Motions or Rulings Regarding Exclusion of Evidence or Testimony
Twelfth, Defendants assert the Court should exclude reference to prior motions or rulings
regarding exclusions of evidence or testimony.43
13. Reference to Absent or Probable Witnesses
Thirteenth, Defendants contend the Court should exclude reference to absent or probable
witnesses.44
14. Testimony from Passengers Pertaining to Injuries Sustained
Fourteenth, Defendants move the Court to exclude opinions or arguments by the passengers
38 Id.
39 Id. at 8.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Id. at 9.
43 Id.
44 Id.
in Plaintiff’s vehicle pertaining to injuries sustained following the accident.45 Defendants assert
that lay witnesses are incompetent to testify to matters of a medical nature and such testimony is
hearsay.46
B. Plaintiff’s Arguments in Opposition to the Motion
Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ motion to the extent it seeks to exclude the following
categories of evidence: (1) any argument about or any reference to the relative financial positions
of Defendants and Plaintiff; (4) Plaintiff’s future damages unless reduced to present value; (5)
reference to punitive or exemplary damages; and (8) any mention Plaintiff is under financial
hardship.47 Plaintiff opposes the motion in limine to the extent it seeks to exclude the other
categories of evidence.48
2. Lay Testimony Regarding Physical Condition of Plaintiff
To the extent Defendants seek to exclude any lay evidence or lay testimony regarding the
physical condition or work capacity of Plaintiff, Plaintiff asserts that a lay witness may offer
testimony that is rationally based on his or her perception, helpful to determining a fact in issue,
and not based on specialized knowledge.49 Plaintiff asserts that a lay witness may present lay
testimony to corroborate medical evidence.50
45 Id. at 10.
46 Id.
47 Rec. Doc. 109 at 2.
48 Id. at 2–11.
49 Id. at 3–4.
50 Id. at 4.
3. Payment of Property Damage
Next, Plaintiff argues that the Court should not exclude any evidence or testimony related
to Defendants’ payment of property damage concerning the Toyota Tundra driven by Plaintiff at
the time of the accident.51 Plaintiff contends that the rule excluding evidence relating to
compromise negotiations operates to exclude such testimony only on the issues of the amount or
the validity of the claim which is the subject of the compromise.52 Plaintiff asserts that such
evidence can be admitted for another purpose.53 Here, Plaintiff argues that the evidence is
admissible to contradict Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiff intentionally caused the accident.54
6. Unrelated Claims or Lawsuits
To the extent Defendants seek to exclude evidence of any unrelated claims or lawsuits
involving Defendants, Plaintiff concedes that such evidence is generally inadmissible.55
However, if the accidents involve similar incidents involving the driver, Plaintiff asserts that the
evidence may be admissible.56 Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court leave this issue open
for consideration.57
7. Settlement Negotiations
Plaintiff argues that the Court should not exclude evidence regarding settlement
51 Id. at 5.
52 Id.
53 Id.
54 Id. at 6.
55 Id. at 2.
56 Id.
57 Id.
negotiations.58 Plaintiff contends that the rule excluding evidence relating to compromise
negotiations operates to exclude such testimony only on the issues of the amount or the validity
of the claim which is the subject of the compromise.59 Plaintiff asserts that such evidence can be
admitted for another purpose.60 Here, Plaintiff argues that the evidence is admissible to contradict
Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiff intentionally caused the accident.61
9. Lay Testimony Regarding Information Provided to Plaintiff by a Doctor
To the extent Defendants seek to exclude any testimony regarding what Plaintiff has been
told by any doctor or other medical witness about his physical and medical condition except for
such statements coming from the doctors themselves, Plaintiff asserts that a lay witness may offer
testimony that is rationally based on his or her perception, helpful to determining a fact in issue,
and not based on specialized knowledge.62 Plaintiff asserts that a lay witness may present lay
testimony to corroborate medical evidence.63
10. Conscience of the Community or Golden Rule Arguments
To the extent Defendants seek to exclude any “Golden Rule” arguments, Plaintiff asserts
that such arguments are permissible on the ultimate question of liability.64
11. Health Problems or Medical Conditions Plaintiff May Incur in the Future
Next, Plaintiff contends the Court should not exclude evidence regarding health problems
58 Id. at 4.
59 Id. at 5.
60 Id.
61 Id. at 6.
62 Id. at 3–4.
63 Id. at 4.
64 Id. at 7 (citing Stokes v. Delcambre, 710 F. 2d 1120, 1128 (5th Cir. 1983)).
or medical conditions Plaintiff may incur in the future.65 Plaintiff asserts that a lay witness may
present lay testimony to corroborate medical evidence.66
12. Prior Motions or Rulings Regarding Exclusion of Evidence or Testimony
To the extent Defendants seek to exclude reference to prior motions or rulings regarding
exclusions of evidence or testimony, Plaintiff asserts this request is too vague and should be left
open to be decided at trial.67
13. Reference to Absent or Probable Witnesses
To the extent Defendants seek to exclude reference to absent or probable witnesses, Plaintiff
contends this evidence may be admitted if Defendants are aware of a witness possessing relevant
information but choose not to present the testimony of that witness.68
14. Testimony from Passengers Pertaining to Injuries Sustained
Finally, Plaintiff argues that the passengers in Plaintiff’s vehicle may testify to injuries
sustained following the accident.69 Plaintiff asserts that a lay witness may offer testimony that is
rationally based on his or her perception, helpful to determining a fact in issue, and not based on
specialized knowledge.70
C. Defendants’ Arguments in Further Support of the Motion in Limine
In the reply brief, Defendants provide additional arguments as to why certain categories of
65 Id. at 8.
66 Id. at 9.
67 Id. at 2.
68 Id. at 2–3.
69 Id. at 10.
70 Id.
evidence should be excluded.71
2. Lay Testimony Regarding Physical Condition of Plaintiff
Defendants assert that Plaintiff must establish opinion testimony as a predicate of any lay
comment on any medical evidence.72 Defendants contend that “[l]ay witness testimony
concerning medical evidence cannot ‘complement and corroborate’ medical evidence if the
medical evidence and testimony does not come first.”73
3. Payment of Property Damage
Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot present evidence of the payment made for the
property damage to the vehicle.74 Defendants assert that “[r]efuting the affirmative defense of
Plaintiff’s intentionally causing the alleged accident is an attempt to show Plaintiff’s claim is
valid.”75 Defendants argue that this is expressly prohibited by Federal Rule of Evidence 408.76
6. Unrelated Claims or Lawsuits
Defendants assert that evidence of other claims or accidents should be excluded because
Plaintiff presents no evidence of any substantially similar claims or accidents.77
7. Payment of Property Damage
Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot present evidence of settlement negotiations.78
71 Rec. Doc. 118.
72 Id. at 4.
73 Id.
74 Id. at 5–6.
75 Id. at 6.
76 Id.
77 Id. at 1.
78 Id. at 5–6.
Defendants assert that “[r]efuting the affirmative defense of Plaintiff’s intentionally causing the
alleged accident is an attempt to show Plaintiff’s claim is valid.”79 Defendants argue that this is
expressly prohibited by Federal Rule of Evidence 408.80
10. Conscience of the Community or Golden Rule Arguments
Defendants argue that any conscience of the community or similar “Golden Rule”
arguments are inadmissible.81 Defendants assert that the case Plaintiff cites to the contrary was
incorrectly decided.82 Furthermore, even if that case is correct, Defendants assert that the Court
should exclude such arguments to the extent they are related to damages.83
11. Health Problems or Medical Conditions Plaintiff May Incur in the Future
Defendants assert that Plaintiff should not be allowed to present evidence of medical
conditions he believes he may incur in the future without first presenting medical testimony to
show what conditions he may develop, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.84
12. Prior Motions or Rulings Regarding Exclusion of Evidence or Testimony
Next, Defendants argue that the Court should exclude argument or evidence concerning
rulings on pretrial evidentiary motions, regardless of their substance.85
13. Reference to Absent or Probable Witnesses
Defendants assert that the Court should prevent both parties from attempting to invoke the
79 Id. at 6.
80 Id.
81 Id. at 8.
82 Id.
83 Id.
84 Id.
85 Id. at 2.
uncalled witness rule or from referencing any evidence or testimony not offered in court.86
14. Testimony from Passengers Pertaining to Injuries Sustained
Defendants assert that testimony from passengers pertaining to injuries sustained is not
admissible without first providing the foundational predicate from a medical doctor.87 Defendants
argue that Plaintiff has not named a medical doctor to provide testimony regarding the medical
conditions of the passengers.88 Furthermore, Defendants contend that allowing the passengers to
testify about their alleged damages will inevitably imply they settled their claims.89
D. Plaintiff’s Arguments Made in the Sur-Reply
In the sur-reply, Plaintiff again argues that lay testimony by Plaintiff regarding his medical
condition should be admitted.90 Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that the Court should not exclude
evidence or testimony related to Defendants’ payment for property damage to the Toyota
Tundra.91 Plaintiff contends that this evidence should be admitted to refute Defendants’
affirmative defense that Plaintiff staged the accident.92 According to Plaintiff, “[t]he very fact that
Defendant paid this claim months later directly contradicts Defendant’s contention that their
Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff committed an ‘intentional act’ in causing this accident which
Defendant claims they knew based on ‘firsthand impressions.’”93 Finally, Plaintiff contends that
86 Id. at 3–4.
87 Id. at 9.
88 Id.
89 Id.
90 Rec. Doc. 129 at 1.
91 Id. at 2.
92 Id. at 3.
93 Id. at 5.
the Court should not exclude opinion testimony by the passengers in the vehicle about their
injuries sustained during the accident.94
III. Legal Standard
A. Relevancy and Prejudice
Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides that 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.” Under Federal Rule of Evidence 402, relevant evidence
is admissible unless the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of
Evidence or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Evidence 403, “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.” The Fifth Circuit instructs that “[t]he exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 should
occur only sparingly[.]”95 “Relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; but it is only unfair
prejudice, substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant matter
under Rule 403.”96
B. Hearsay
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay is defined as “a statement that: (1) the
declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in
94 Id. at 6.
95 United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1149 (1994).
96 Id. at 1115–16 (quoting United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862
(1979)).
evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.”97 Hearsay is not admissible
unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or “other rules prescribed by the Supreme
Court” provide otherwise.98 After a party properly objects to the admission of evidence as
hearsay, the proponent of evidence bears the burden to show that statement is not offered as
hearsay or falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.99
IV. Analysis
Defendants move the Court to exclude the introduction of fourteen various categories of
evidence.100 Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ motion to the extent it seeks to exclude the
following categories of evidence: (1) any argument about or any reference to the relative financial
positions of Defendants and Plaintiff; (4) Plaintiff’s future damages unless reduced to present
value; (5) reference to punitive or exemplary damages; and (8) any mention Plaintiff is under
financial hardship.101 Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion as to these categories of
evidence.
Plaintiff opposes in whole or in part the exclusion of the other categories of evidence at
97 Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(1)–(2). Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) further provides that opposing party’s
statements and certain prior statements by declarant-witnesses used to impeach or rebut the witness are not
hearsay.
98 Fed. R. Evid. 802.
99 See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987) (“The preponderance standard ensures that
before admitting evidence, the court will have found it more likely than not that the technical issues and
policy concerns addressed by the Federal Rules of Evidence have been afforded due consideration.”);
Loomis v. Starkville Mississippi Pub. Sch. Dist., 150 F. Supp. 3d 730, 742–43 (N.D. Miss. 2015) (“Once a
party has ‘properly objected to [evidence] as inadmissible hearsay,’ the burden shifts to the proponent of
the evidence to show, ‘by a preponderance of the evidence, that the evidence [falls] within an exclusion or
exception to the hearsay rule and was therefore admissible.’” (citations omitted)); see also Randle v. Tregre,
147 F. Supp. 3d 581, 596 (E.D. La. 2015) (Africk, J.); Broad. Music, Inc. v. Tex Border Mgmt., Inc., No.
10-2524, 2012 WL 4119111, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2012).
100 Rec. Doc. 108.
101 Rec. Doc. 109 at 2.
issue in Defendants’ omnibus motion in limine. Therefore, the Court addresses each category of
contested evidence in turn.
2. Lay Testimony Regarding Physical Condition of Plaintiff
Defendants assert the Court should exclude any lay evidence or lay testimony regarding the
physical condition or work capacity of Plaintiff.102 In opposition, Plaintiff argues that a lay
witness may present lay testimony to corroborate medical evidence.103 In reply, Defendants
contend that Plaintiff must establish opinion testimony as a predicate of any lay comment on any
medical evidence.104
Testimony regarding the cause of any medical condition is within the purview of a medical
expert.105 However, a lay witness may present “[l]ay testimony . . . to complement and corroborate
medical evidence.” 106 Accordingly, Defendants’ request to exclude lay witnesses from testifying
concerning Plaintiff’s medical condition is overly broad and must be denied.
3. Payment of Property Damage
Defendants contend the Court should exclude any evidence or testimony related to
Defendants’ payment of property damage concerning the Toyota Tundra driven by Plaintiff at the
time of the accident.107 Plaintiff argues that the evidence is admissible to contradict Defendants’
102 Rec. Doc. 108-1 at 4.
103 Rec. Doc. 109 at 4.
104 Rec. Doc. 118 at 4.
105 Rea v. Wisconsin Coach Lines, Inc., No. 12-1252, 2014 WL 4981803, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 3, 2014)
(Duval, J.) (“[T]estimony as to causation or as to future medical treatment has been considered the province
of expert testimony.”).
106 Barocco v. Ennis Inc., 100 F. App’x 965, 968 (5th Cir. 2004).
107 Rec. Doc. 108-1 at 5.
assertion that Plaintiff intentionally caused the accident.108
Federal Rule of Evidence 408 governs the admissibility of settlement agreements.109 Rule
408 prohibits evidence of compromise negotiations, as well as conduct or statements made during
compromise negotiations, from being admitted “either to prove or disprove the validity or amount
of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.”110 However,
such evidence is admissible to show the bias or prejudice of a witness.111 Although the contents
or amount of a settlement is typically inadmissible, the existence of a settlement may be
admissible to reduce a jury’s confusion about absent defendants.112 “Whether to permit the
evidence for another purpose is within the discretion of the trial court.”113
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408, Plaintiff cannot present evidence of a
settlement to prove the validity of his claim. Similarly, Plaintiff cannot present evidence of a
settlement to disprove the defense’s theory that Plaintiff fraudulently caused the accident.
Admitting the evidence for that purpose would violate Rule 408, because evidence of a settlement
cannot be admitted to either prove or disprove the validity of a disputed claim. Evidence of any
settlement will be excluded for that purpose. Plaintiff has not presented an admissible basis upon
which he would seek to admit this evidence at trial. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to introduce
evidence of the settlement for another purpose, he may raise the issue again at trial, if necessary.
108 Rec. Doc. 109 at 6.
109 Fed. R. Evid. 408.
110 Fed. R. Evid. 408(a)(1).
111 Fed. R. Evid. 408(b).
112 Latiolais v. Cravins, 574 F. App’x 429, 435 (5th Cir. 2014).
113 Branch v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York, 783 F.2d 1289, 1294 (5th Cir. 1986).
6. Unrelated Claims or Lawsuits
Defendants contend the Court should exclude evidence of any unrelated claims or lawsuits
involving Defendants.114 In response, Plaintiff concedes that such evidence is generally
inadmissible.115 However, if the accidents involve similar incidents involving the driver, Plaintiff
asserts that the evidence may be admissible.116 In reply, Defendants assert that Plaintiff presents
no evidence of any substantially similar claims or accidents.117
The Court is not inclined to admit evidence of prior unrelated claims or lawsuits. Yet neither
Plaintiff nor Defendants address this evidentiary issue with specificity. Because neither party
enumerates any specific prior claim, the Court cannot determine whether any prior claim (1) is
relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and (2) passes the balancing test under Federal Rule
of Evidence 403. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ abstract request, but will allow
Defendants to raise this issue again at trial, if necessary.
7. Settlement Negotiations
Defendants argue the Court should exclude any mention, direct or indirect, of the fact of
settlement negotiations and/or their content.118 Plaintiff argues that the evidence is admissible to
contradict Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiff intentionally caused the accident.119
Federal Rule of Evidence 408 governs the admissibility of settlement agreements.120 Rule
114 Rec. Doc. 108-1 at 6.
115 Rec. Doc. 109 at 2.
116 Id.
117 Rec. Doc. 118 at 1.
118 Rec. Doc. 108-1 at 7.
119 Rec. Doc. 109 at 6.
120 Fed. R. Evid. 408.
408 prohibits evidence of compromise negotiations, as well as conduct or statements made during
compromise negotiations, from being admitted “either to prove or disprove the validity or amount
of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.”121 However,
such evidence is admissible to show the bias or prejudice of a witness.122 Although the contents
or amount of a settlement is typically inadmissible, the existence of a settlement may be
admissible to reduce a jury’s confusion about absent defendants.123 “Whether to permit the
evidence for another purpose is within the discretion of the trial court.”124
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408, Plaintiff cannot present evidence of a settlement
to prove the validity of his claim. Similarly, Plaintiff cannot present evidence of a settlement to
disprove the defense’s theory that Plaintiff fraudulently caused the accident. Admitting the
evidence for that purpose would violate Rule 408, because evidence of a settlement cannot be
admitted to either prove or disprove the validity of a disputed claim. Evidence of any settlement
will be excluded for that purpose. Plaintiff has not presented an admissible basis upon which he
would seek to introduce this evidence at trial. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence
of the settlement for another purpose, he may raise the issue again at trial, if necessary.
9. Lay Testimony Regarding Information Provided to Plaintiff by a Doctor
Defendants contend the Court should exclude any testimony regarding what Plaintiff has
been told by any doctor or other medical witness about his physical and medical condition except
121 Fed. R. Evid. 408(a)(1).
122 Fed. R. Evid. 408(b).
123 Latiolais, 574 F. App’x at 435.
124 Branch, 783 F.2d at 1294.
for such statements coming from the doctors themselves.125 Plaintiff asserts that a lay witness
may offer testimony that is rationally based on his or her perception, helpful to determining a fact
in issue, and not based on specialized knowledge.126 Plaintiff asserts that a lay witness may
present lay testimony to corroborate medical evidence.127
Testimony regarding the cause of any medical condition is within the purview of a medical
expert.128 However, a lay witness may present “[l]ay testimony . . . to complement and corroborate
medical evidence.” 129 Accordingly, Defendants’ request to exclude lay witnesses from testifying
regarding what Plaintiff has been told by any doctor or other medical witness about his physical
and medical condition is overly broad and must be denied.
10. Conscience of the Community or Golden Rule Arguments
Defendants move the Court to exclude any improper argument that the jury is the
conscience of the community or similar “Golden Rule” arguments.130 To the extent Defendants
seek to exclude any “Golden Rule” arguments, Plaintiff asserts that such arguments are
permissible on the ultimate question of liability.131
“Golden Rule” arguments are arguments which ask the jurors to stand in the shoes of a
party.132 “A plea to the jury members to ‘put themselves in the shoes of the plaintiff and do unto
125 Rec. Doc. 108-1 at 7.
126 Rec. Doc. 109 at 3–4.
127 Rec. Doc. 109 at 4.
128 Rea, No. 12-1252, 2014 WL 4981803, at *2.
129 Barocco, 100 F. App’x at 968.
130 Rec. Doc. 108-1 at 8.
131 Rec. Doc. 109 at 7.
132 Brown v. Parker Drilling Offshore Corp., 410 F.3d 166, 180 (5th Cir. 2005).
him as they would have done unto them under similar circumstances . . . [is] improper because it
encourages the jury to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal
interest and bias rather than the evidence.’”133 However, the Fifth Circuit has also held that “[t]he
use of the Golden Rule argument is improper only in relation to damages. It is not improper when
urged on the issue of ultimate liability.”134 In Stokes v. Delcambre, the plaintiff was assaulted
while being held in Vermilion Parish jail, and the court found that it was permissible for counsel,
in his closing argument, to ask the jury to put themselves in the plaintiff’s place to determine
whether his fears and resultant failure to request help were reasonable, because “[t]his
determination went to the ultimate question of liability, not the amount of damage.”135 “Thus, the
permissibility of Golden Rule arguments turns on whether they are directed to the reasonableness
of a parties’ actions (i.e. liability), rather than how a juror would wish to personally be
compensated under similar circumstances.”136
In response to the motion in limine, Plaintiff does not provide any detail on the Golden Rule
argument he intends to present at trial. Accordingly, the Court cannot rule on the admissibility of
any such argument at this time. Therefore, Defendants’ request is denied because it is overly
broad, but it may be reasserted again at trial if necessary.
11. Health Problems or Medical Conditions Plaintiff May Incur in the Future
Defendants argue the Court should exclude evidence regarding health problems or medical
133 Id. (quoting Ivy v. Sec. Barge Lines, Inc., 585 F.2d 732, 741 (5th Cir. 1978)).
134 Stokes v. Delcambre, 710 F.2d 1120, 1128 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing Burrage v. Harrell, 537 F.2d 837 (5th
Cir. 1976)).
135 Id.
136 Rivera v. Robinson, No. CV 18-14005, 2020 WL 2838578, at *1 (E.D. La. June 1, 2020).
conditions Plaintiff may incur in the future.137 In response, Plaintiff asserts that a lay witness may
present lay testimony to corroborate medical evidence.138 In reply, Defendants assert that Plaintiff
should not be allowed to present evidence of medical conditions he believes he may incur in the
future without first presenting medical testimony to show what conditions he may develop, to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty.139
As discussed above, testimony regarding the cause of any medical condition is within the
purview of a medical expert.140 However, a lay witness may present “[l]ay testimony . . . to
complement and corroborate medical evidence.” 141 Accordingly, Defendants’ request to exclude
lay witnesses from testifying regarding potential future medical conditions is overly broad and
must be denied.
12. Prior Motions or Rulings Regarding Exclusion of Evidence or Testimony
Defendants assert the Court should exclude reference to prior motions or rulings regarding
exclusions of evidence or testimony.142 In response, Plaintiff asserts this request is too vague and
should be left open to be decided at trial.143
The purpose of a motion in limine is for the Court to rule on certain evidentiary issues
before trial. The parties should not mention evidence in the presence of the jury that has been
excluded by this Court. If an evidentiary issue arises at trial, it will be addressed outside the
137 Rec. Doc. 108-1 at 8.
138 Rec. Doc. 109 at 9.
139 Rec. Doc. 118 at 8.
140 Rea, No. 12-1252, 2014 WL 4981803, at *2.
141 Barocco, 100 F. App’x at 968.
142 Rec. Doc. 108-1 at 9.
143 Rec. Doc. 109 at 2.
presence of the jury. Accordingly, the Court excludes reference to prior motions or rulings
regarding the exclusion of evidence or testimony.
13. Reference to Absent or Probable Witnesses
Defendants contend the Court should exclude reference to absent or probable witnesses.144
Plaintiff contends this evidence may be admitted if Defendants are aware of a witness possessing
relevant information but choose not to present the testimony of that witness.145 In reply,
Defendants assert that the Court should prevent both parties from attempting to invoke the
uncalled witness rule or from referencing any evidence or testimony not offered in court.146
As a general matter, the parties should not reference any potential evidence or testimony
that is not offered in Court. To the extent this request is too vague to allow Plaintiff to file an
appropriate response, Defendants’ request is denied. Defendants may raise this issue at trial, if
necessary.
14. Testimony from Passengers Pertaining to Injuries Sustained
Defendants move the Court to exclude opinions or arguments by the passengers in
Plaintiff’s vehicle pertaining to injuries sustained following the accident.147 Plaintiff argues that
the passengers in Plaintiff’s vehicle may testify to injuries sustained following the accident.148 In
reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not named a medical doctor to provide testimony
144 Rec. Doc. 108-1 at 9.
145 Rec. Doc. 109 at 2–3.
146 Rec. Doc. 118 at 3–4.
147 Rec. Doc. 108-1 at 10.
148 Rec. Doc. 109 at 10.
regarding the medical conditions of the passengers.149 Furthermore, Defendants contend that
allowing the passengers to testify about their alleged damages will inevitably imply they settled
their claims.150
As discussed above, testimony regarding the cause of any medical condition is within the
purview of a medical expert.151 However, a lay witness may present “[l]ay testimony . . . to
complement and corroborate medical evidence.” 152 At this time, it is unclear what testimony the
passengers in the car intend to present regarding their injuries. The passengers can present lay
testimony that is within their personal knowledge. However, the passengers cannot provide
medical causation testimony. Accordingly, Defendants’ request to exclude lay witnesses from
testifying regarding potential future medical conditions is overly broad and must be denied.
V. Conclusion
Considering the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ omnibus motion in limine
in part and denies it in part. Accordingly,
149 Rec. Doc. 118 at 9.
150 Id.
151 Rea, No. 12-1252, 2014 WL 4981803, at *2.
152 Barocco., 100 F. App’x at 968.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ “Omnibus Motion to in Limine”!>? is
GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks to exclude the following categories of evidence: (1)
any argument about or any reference to the relative financial positions of Defendants and Plaintiff;
(3) any evidence or testimony related to Defendants’ payment of property damage concerning the
Toyota Tundra driven by Plaintiff at the time of the accident (4) Plaintiffs future damages unless
reduced to present value; (5) reference to punitive or exemplary damages; (7) any mention, direct
or indirect, of the fact of settlement negotiations and/or their content; (8) any mention Plaintiff 1s
under financial hardship; and (12) reference to prior motions or rulings regarding exclusions of
evidence or testimony.!°* The motion is DENIED in all other respects.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this toth day of July, 2020.
D Greeti JO TTE BROWN Aon
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 Rec. Doc. 107.
™ Rec. Doc. 109 at 2.
25