Filed: Feb. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STACI M. YANDLE , District Judge . Pending before the Court are the Motions in Limine filed by Defendants Ingersoll-Rand Company (Doc. 451), Borgwarner Morse Tec (Doc. 436), 1 Excelsior Packing and Viking Pumps, Inc. (Doc. 469). Defendant Honeywell International adopted and incorporated co-defendants' motions (Doc. 504). The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule on the relevance and admissibility of evidence before it is offered at tri
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STACI M. YANDLE , District Judge . Pending before the Court are the Motions in Limine filed by Defendants Ingersoll-Rand Company (Doc. 451), Borgwarner Morse Tec (Doc. 436), 1 Excelsior Packing and Viking Pumps, Inc. (Doc. 469). Defendant Honeywell International adopted and incorporated co-defendants' motions (Doc. 504). The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule on the relevance and admissibility of evidence before it is offered at tria..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STACI M. YANDLE, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are the Motions in Limine filed by Defendants Ingersoll-Rand Company (Doc. 451), Borgwarner Morse Tec (Doc. 436),1 Excelsior Packing and Viking Pumps, Inc. (Doc. 469). Defendant Honeywell International adopted and incorporated co-defendants' motions (Doc. 504).
The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule on the relevance and admissibility of evidence before it is offered at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41, n.4 (1984)("although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials"). It serves to "aid the trial process by enabling the court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial." Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562, 566 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2nd Cir. 1996).
Motions in limine also may save the parties time, effort, and cost in preparing and presenting their cases. Pivot Point Intern., Inc. v. Charlene Products, Inc., 932 F.Supp. 220, 222 (N.D.Ill. 1996). Often, however, the better practice is to wait until trial to rule on objections, particularly when admissibility substantially depends upon facts which may be developed there. Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997); see also Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 987 (1975).
The movant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is inadmissible on any relevant ground, "for any purpose." Plair v. E.J. Brach & Sons, Inc., 864 F.Supp. 67, 69 (N.D.Ill. 1994). The court may deny a motion in limine when it "lacks the necessary specificity with respect to the evidence to be excluded." Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. L.E. Myers Co. Group, 937 F.Supp. 276, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Moreover, the court may alter an in limine ruling based on developments at trial or sound judicial discretion. Luce, 469 U.S. at 41. "Denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted at trial." Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., Inc., 831 F. Supp.1398, 1401 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Denial only means that the court cannot decide admissibility outside the context of trial. Plair, 864 F. Supp. at 69.
A court may reserve judgment until trial, so that the motion in limine is placed "in an appropriate factual context." Nat'l Union, 937 F. Supp. at 287. Stated another way, motion in limine rulings are "subject to change when the case unfolds" at trial. Luce, 469 U.S. at 41. Indeed, "even if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the district judge is free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling." Id. The Court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine "only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." Jonasson, 115 F.3d at 440.
With these principles in mind, the Court rules as follows.
1. The Court GRANTS the following unopposed motions in limine:
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 1 — to exclude witnesses and exhibits not previously disclosed;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 2 — to exclude witnesses and expert testimony not previously disclosed;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 6 — to preclude argument or evidence regarding knowledge or conduct post-dating plaintiff's last alleged exposure;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 8 — to preclude argument or evidence regarding products not at issue;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 9 — to exclude evidence or argument related to Ingersoll Rand Company's parent, related, and affiliated companies;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 13 — to exclude testimony regarding Ingersoll Rand Company's insurance against liability;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 14 — to exclude demonstrative evidence or real physical evidence until the Court rules on admissibility;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 15 — to exclude witnesses' medical diagnosis;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 16 — to exclude reference, testimony, or evidence that any friend, relative, co-worker, or other person was injured as a result of exposure to asbestos;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 17 — to exclude evidence regarding Ingersoll Rand Company products in use at job sites after Plaintiff's last date of claimed exposure;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 18 — to exclude any trial testimony regarding Ingersoll Rand Company products used at hob sites where plaintiff did not work;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 22 — to prohibit Plaintiff from referring to "profits at the expense of others";
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 23 — to require 24-hour pre-disclosure of witness testimony and documentary production;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 25 — to exclude medical bills;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 26 — to prohibit Plaintiff from referring to crossclaims or codefendants;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 27 — to exclude evidence regarding the amount of money or time spent by Ingersoll Rand Company in defending this matter or any reference to Defendant's wealth;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 28 — to exclude evidence, testimony, or reference to settlement offers and/or negotiations;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 30 — to exclude evidence or other vclaims, reports, or lawsuits;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 31 — to exclude non-party witnesses from the courtroom;
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 34 — to exclude evidence regarding motions in limine;
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 1 — references to jury consultants;
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 2 — references to "regardless of who pays" interrogating the jury panel as to whether they would answer an issue of damages in accordance with the evidence, regardless of who pays the damages or when they will be paid, or whether they will ever be paid, or any similar version of such inquiry;
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 3 — references to Plaintiff's lack of insurance;
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 4 — references to size of law firms;
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 5 — mentioning or commenting to the jury about any other case in which counsel may have been involved;
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 6 — mentioning that Defendants' counsel represent insurance companies in litigation;
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 8 — concert of action among Defendants;
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 9 — any contention that superseding cause is no defense to a strict liability claim or that negligent conduct will not suffice as a superseding cause;
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 10 — mentioning or referencing any expert witness conversations with another expert or hearsay conversations with another person;
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 12 — mentioning, referencing or introducing any evidence of the EPA hearings on asbestos, the testimony presented at the EPA hearings and the EPA's alleged "ban" of products containing asbestos;
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 6 — references to the fact that Defendants have previously settled asbestos lawsuits;
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 19 — references to or comments on any alleged discovery violations of Defendants in prior lawsuits;
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 25 — references to or comments on the amount of time and expense spent by Defendants in defending this case;
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 30 — mentioning or referencing the number of attorneys or legal assistants or the location of Defendants' attorneys' law firms;
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 39 — mentioning or referencing the refusal of either party to enter into a stipulation prior to trial;
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 43 — mentioning, suggesting or implying that Defendants may have been found guilty of any misconduct, criminal liability, or civil liability in the past;
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 45 — mentioning, referencing or introducing evidence of any subsequent remedial measures or actions;
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 55 — mentioning or offering into evidence any comments or insinuations that Corporate America is evil.
2. The following motions in limine were opposed by the parties. Upon review, the Court finds that no additional arguments are necessary or would further aid the Court in making its determination. The Court notes that, generally, admissibility questions should be ruled upon as they arise at trial. Accordingly, if evidence is not clearly inadmissible, evidentiary rulings must be deferred until trial to allow questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice to be resolved in context. Thus, denial of a motion in limine in this Order does not indicate evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted at trial. Rather, unless otherwise specified, denial demonstrates that the Court cannot determine whether the evidence in question should be excluded outside the trial context. See United States v. Connelly, 874 F.2d 412, 416 (7th Cir.1989). Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 3 — to preclude specific-causation testimony from Plaintiff's expert. The Motion implicates FRE 702 and Daubert. As Daubert motions were due to be filed on or before October 31, 2015, the Motion is DENIED as untimely.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 4 — to bar the use of prior deposition testimony and prior court testimony. The Motion is MOOT. As the Court previously ruled, Plaintiff is prohibited from calling any witnesses by deposition testimony other than Plaintiff and Dr. James Strauchen (see Docs. 489, 513).
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 5 — for set off and to compel disclosure of all settlements with other parties or entities. The Motion is not a proper in limine motion. In the event of a verdict in Plaintiff's favor, Defendants can file an appropriate motion regarding set off at the conclusion of trial. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 7 — to preclude argument or evidence of Government statements or regulations regarding asbestos hazards. The Motion is DENIED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 10 — to exclude lay witness testimony that products contained asbestos. The Motion is DENIED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 11 — to exclude any argument or suggestion that Defendant is liable for products affixed to its products post-sale. The Motion is DENIED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 12 — to exclude reference to other diseases. The Motion is DENIED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 19 — to exclude all anecdotal testimony or documents concerning asbestos content of products or the cause of Plaintiff's medical condition. The Motion is DENIED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 20 — to exclude any testimony, argument, or evidence that Plaintiff or any person saw visible dust while utilizing Defendants' products. The Motion is DENIED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 21 — to prohibit imputed knowledge of the purported hazards of asbestos exposure to Defendants. The Motion is DENIED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 24 — to bar argument or reference to lack of client representative at trial. The Motion is GRANTED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 29 — to exclude any argument that Defendants "refuse to take responsibility" or "still refuse to take responsibility" simply because they have chosen to defend themselves at trial. There is no legal support for the exclusion of this type of reference and, therefore, the Motion is DENIED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 32 — to preclude use of the terms "asbestos industry," "asbestos company" or "member of the asbestos industry" before the jury. There is no legal support for the exclusion of this type of reference and, therefore, the Motion is DENIED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 33 — referring to defense counsel as "asbestos defense attorney", Plaintiff as an "asbestos victim," or similar references in front of the jury. There is no legal support for the exclusion of this type of reference and, therefore, the Motion is DENIED.
• Ingersoll-Rand's motion in limine No. 35 — to incorporate by reference motions in limine filed by other codefendants. The Motion is GRANTED.
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 7 — probable testimony. The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall be prohibited from mentioning or stating to the jury the probable testimony of a witness who is absent or unavailable to Defendants. However, Plaintiff will not be prohibited from mentioning the failure of Defendants to call any expert witness employed to express an opinion.
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 11 — references to or evidence of alleged duty on the part of Defendants to provide warnings in the absence of the requisite predicate. The Motion is DENIED.
• Viking and Excelsior's motion in limine No. 13 — references to an alleged post-sale duty to warn. The Motion is DENIED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 14 — reference to or comments by Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff's exposure to products allegedly attributable to Defendants that are based on hearsay. The Motion is DENIED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 15 — testimony by Plaintiff regarding his exposure to products allegedly attributable to Defendants that are beyond the scope of his prior depositions in this action. The Motion is DENIED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 29 — reference to or comment by Plaintiff's counsel in regards to certain statements. There is no legal support for the exclusion of this type of reference and, therefore, the Motion is DENIED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 32 — suggesting or asking jurors to place themselves in the position of Plaintiff. The Motion is GRANTED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 33 — mentioning or making reference to the failure to call any witness that is equally available to all parties. The Motion is GRANTED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 34 — mentioning or stating to the jury the probable testimony of an absent witness. The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall be prohibited from mentioning or stating to the jury the probable testimony of a witness who is absent or unavailable to Defendants. However, Plaintiff will not be prohibited from mentioning the failure of Defendants to call any expert witness employed to express an opinion.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 36 — any statement or remark by Plaintiff's counsel as to his personal beliefs or opinions concerning the equities or justice inherent in Plaintiff's case or his right to recover damages. The Motion is DENIED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 37 — referencing or making disparaging remarks to Defendants. There is no legal support for the exclusion of this type of reference and, therefore, the Motion is DENIED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 38 — referencing in any manner or making prejudicial comparison between the conduct of Defendants and other corporate entities or products. The Motion is DENIED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 44 — mentioning, referencing or introducing evidence of any prior action and/or omission on the part of Defendants that is not directly related to the incident and allegations at issue. The Motion is DENIED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 48 — Referencing evidence of case reports, case report compilations, or expert opinions based on such reports to prove causation. The Motion is DENIED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 54 — referencing any statement made to Plaintiff by medical personnel or conversations with any doctor or other medical practitioner. The Motion is DENIED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 56 — referencing or presenting testimony with respect to the minutes of general meeting and committee meetings and any other records of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Asbestos Textile Institute or any other trade organization or association. The Motion is DENIED.
• Borgwarner's motion in limine No. 57 — reference to or comment by Plaintiff, counsel, and witnesses that attempt to introduce evidence before the jury or the venire at any time regarding the condition of Defendants' manufacturing plants. The Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
