United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Tiffany
Locke's (“Locke”) Motions in Limine. [DN 54.]
Defendants Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Tevin
Davis, collectively (“Defendants”) have
responded. [DN 66.] The time to reply has passed. As such
this matter is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that
follow, Locke's Motions in Limine are GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
in limine provided in advance of trial are appropriate if
they eliminate evidence that has no legitimate use at trial
for any purpose. Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family
Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir.1997); Bouchard
v. Am. Home Products Corp., 213 F.Supp.2d 802, 810
(N.D.Ohio 2002) (“The court has the power to exclude
evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible
on all potential grounds.” (citing Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d
443 (1984))). Only where the evidence satisfies this high bar
should the court exclude it; if not, “rulings [on
evidence] should be deferred until trial so that questions of
foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved
in proper context.” Gresh v. Waste Servs. of Am.,
Inc., 738 F.Supp.2d 702, 706 (E.D.Ky.2010) (quoting
Ind. Ins. Co. v. GE, 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846
(N.D.Ohio 2004)). Even if a motion in limine is denied, the
court may revisit the decision at trial when the parties have
more thoroughly presented the disputed evidence. See
Id. (“Denial of a motion in limine does not
guarantee that the evidence will be admitted at trial, and
the court will hear objections to such evidence as they arise
Defendants should be precluded from introducing evidence of
other physical and mental condition(s) of Plaintiff not
related to the injuries received in this crash.
argues that any other medical conditions and treatment she
has had in the past were not involved in this crash or her
injuries. She further argues that evidence of these
conditions or treatment are not relevant and Federal Rule of
Evidence 402 prohibits irrelevant evidence. In response,
Defendants assert that Locke has placed her mental and
physical condition into issue and must prove that Defendants
caused injury to Locke.
Court agrees with Defendants. There may be circumstances
where Defendants can, in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Evidence, use other physical and mental conditions to combat
causation. This issue cannot be resolved in its entirety
prior to trial as the motion is too vague. The Court reserves
the right to rule on the admissibility of certain evidence at
Locke's motion in limine #1 is DENIED.
Defendants should be precluded from any reference, argument,
or the introduction of Plaintiff's medical records not
relevant to the personal injury claim at issue.
Locke argues that Defendants should not reference or admit
her medical records not pertaining to the injuries from the
crash because they are not relevant. Again, the Court finds
that medical records that combat causation are relevant. At
this point, the Court cannot preclude all medical records
because some may be relevant to the issues at hand. The Court
again reserves the right to rule on the admissibility of
certain evidence at trial. Therefore, Locke's motion in
limine #2 is DENIED.
Defendants should be precluded from making any reference to
collateral source rule “precludes courts from reducing
a plaintiff's medical damages based on insurance payments
made for [her] care, so long as the associated premiums were
paid by the plaintiff [herself] or a third party other than
the tortfeasor.” King Joseph X v. Liberty Mut.
Grp., Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16512, *7 (W.D. Ky.
Feb. 1, 2018). “Plaintiff may seek recovery for the
reasonable value of medical services without consideration of
insurance (or Medicare) payments. Fulcher v. United
States, 88 F.Supp.3d 763, 774-775 (W.D. Ky. 2015).
Defendants state that they do not intend to offer evidence on
Locke's collateral source benefits. However, Defendants
state that if Locke introduces medical bills to prove
reasonable medical expenses, evidence that the amount
actually charged WAS less is admissible. The Court disagrees.
the amount charged on a bill may not be the amount charged to
the payor this Court has found that evidence to be
inadmissible. Dossett v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4515 *5 (W.D. Ky. Jan. ...