The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DANNY HADDOX, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 18-CV-266-SEH-CDL
CENTRAL FREIGHTLINES, INC.;
NICHOLAS ROSHON MOORE,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine Regarding Tulsa Police
Department’s Semi Cruz Vision Test/Reenactment. [ECF No. 84]. Plaintiffs
move for an order prohibiting “any purported expert testimony from the
Tulsa Police Department” about a test or reenactment officers conducted
after the accident. [Id. at 1–3]. Because neither party has designated the
officers involved in the exercise as expert witnesses, Defendants will be
permitted to question them, and any other lay witness, in conformity with
Fed. R. Evid. 701. The Court finds the Tulsa Police Department’s
investigation into the accident and eyewitness testimony relevant and highly
probative of the issues to be decided in this case. Therefore, the Court denies
the motion.
I. Background
The Tulsa Police Department conducted a “vision test” or “reenactment”
sometime after the accident to corroborate or contradict witness Bruce
Gourd’s recollection of the accident and to evaluate the timing of the lights.
[ECF No. 97-2 at 4:20–5:5; ECF No. 97-3 at 5:18–6:9]. Both Kristi Score and
Brian Collum testified this exercise was done as part of their investigation.
[ECF No. 97-2 at 5:15–21; ECF No. 97-3 at 5:18–6:4]. Plaintiffs and
Defendants disagree whether the exercise was part of Tulsa Police
Department’s investigation or a reenactment of the accident. [Compare ECF
No. 84 at 5 with ECF No. 97 at 2–3]. Regardless, Plaintiffs argue that any
testimony about this exercise should be precluded because it does not qualify
as “expert” testimony and would confuse and mislead the jury. [ECF No. 84
at 5].
II. Discussion
A. Standard
“A motion in limine is a request for guidance by the court regarding an
evidentiary question, which the court may provide at its discretion to aid the
parties in formulating trial strategy.” Jones v. Stotts, 59 F.3d 143, 146 (10th
Cir. 1995) (cleaned up). “The purpose of a motion in limine is to aid the trial
process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of
certain forecasted evidence, as to the issues that are definitely set for trial,
without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.” Mendelsohn v.
Sprint/United Mgmnt. Co., 587 F.Supp.2d 1201, 1208 (D. Kan. 2008) aff’d,
402 F. App’x 337 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotation and citation omitted). In many
instances, “evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions
of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in the
proper context.” Id. (citations omitted). “A court will generally not grant a
motion in limine unless the moving party meets its burden of showing that
the evidence in question is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.”
Tulsa Zoo Mgmt., Inc. v. Peckham Guyton Albers & Viets, Inc., No. 17-CV-
644-GKF-FHM, 2019 WL 1562147, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 5, 2019) (emphasis
in original) (citation and quotation omitted).
Admissibility of evidence in diversity cases is generally governed by
federal law. Blanke v. Alexander, 152 F.3d 1224, 1231 (10th Cir. 1998)
(citation omitted). State law concerning the admissibility of evidence will be
considered only if the issue involves a “substantive” state rule of evidence,
such as the collateral source rule, the parol evidence rule, or the statute of
frauds. Id. The parties are advised that all rulings on their motions in limine
are preliminary, and the Court will refrain from an in limine ruling if the
issue raised by the parties requires the Court to resolve disputed factual
issues.
B. Analysis
Plaintiffs attempt to elevate the expected evidence to expert testimony by
arguing the “test was not conducted to appropriate scientific standards, did
not rely upon the actual data from the night of the accident, and completely
misleads any potential jurors in this case.” [ECF No. 84 at 3]. Importantly,
neither Kristi Score nor Brian Collum have been designated as expert
witnesses in this case. [See ECF Nos. 137, 138]. The Court will not permit
Plaintiffs to unilaterally designate them as such in a motion in limine.
Therefore, Fed. R. Evid. 701 controls what opinions Kristi Score and Brian
Collum may or may not provide. Lay witnesses are permitted to offer
“observations that are common enough and require a limited amount of
expertise, if any.” Ryan Dev. Co., L.C. v. Ind. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 711
F.3d 1165, 1170 (10th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). Therefore, Defendants
will be permitted to question Kristi Score and Brian Collum, and any other
lay witness, in conformity with Fed. R. Evid. 701.
The appropriate inquiry for this evidence is whether it is relevant and
whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
“unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid.
401; 403. Evidence is relevant if “it 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. The Court finds
that the Tulsa Police Department’s investigation into the accident 1s relevant.
Eyewitness testimony is also relevant. The issues Plaintiffs raise about the
Tulsa Police Department’s exercise can properly be addressed on cross-
examination and the jury can determine how much weight to give the “test.”
Therefore, the Plaintiff has not established that the evidence is unfairly
prejudicial or otherwise “clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.”
Mendelsohn, 587 F.Supp.2d at 1208.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion
should be denied. Any further ruling on evidentiary issues related to the
“semi cruz vision test” or “reenactment” are deferred until a party seeks to
admit such evidence at trial and the facts have been better developed during
the trial process.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine
Regarding Tulsa Police Department’s Semi Cruz Vision Test/Reenactment
[ECF No. 84] is DENIED.
DATED this 25th day of September, 2025.
Ao F. Hill
Sara E. Hill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE