United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
TRAVIS QUINN, Individually and on behalf of his minor child, K.Q., and KELLY SCHLANGEN, on behalf of her minor child, W.Q., Plaintiffs,
FRANZEN FAMILY TRACTORS AND PARTS, LLC, Defendant.
SECOND ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Second Motion
in Limine (Doc. 32) and Plaintiffs' First Motion in
Limine. (Doc. 35). Each party filed responses to the other
party's motion. (Docs. 38 and 39). The Court discussed
the issues raised in the motions with the parties during the
Final Pretrial Conference on Tuesday, March 13, 2018.
reasons that follow, and based in part upon positions taken
by the parties in their responses and during the Final
Pretrial Conference, the Court grants in part, denies
in part, and holds in abeyance in part the parties'
motions in limine.
DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE
Second Motion in Limine, defendant seeks an order in limine
on three separate issues. The Court will address each in
Dr. Patrick Hartley
seeks an order in limine barring plaintiffs from introducing
evidence from plaintiffs' non-treating medical expert,
Dr. Patrick Hartley, on matters defendant asserts were not
part of Dr. Hartley's report and were not disclosed
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. (Doc. 32, at 2-4). Plaintiffs
disagree, but nevertheless indicated in their response that
they have redacted portions of Dr. Hartley's videotaped
deposition and that this portion of defendant's motion is
therefore moot. (Doc. 39, at 1-2). During the Final Pretrial
Conference, defense counsel concurred that the parties have
worked this issue out. Therefore, the Court denies as
moot this portion of defendant's Second Motion
Testimony of Skogen Engineering Group Witnesses
moves for an order in limine barring testimony by either
Dennis Skogen or Zach Bingen, both employees of Skogen
Engineering Group. (Doc. 32, at 4). Defendant anticipates
that these witnesses will present cumulative testimony
regarding liability issues. (Id.). Plaintiffs
resist, asserting that there may be some “slight
overlap in their testimony, ” but that “Mr.
Bingen's testimony will primarily focus on measurements
and observations he made during the inspections, and Mr.
Skogen's testimony will primarily, although not
exclusively, address the opinions formed based on those
measurements and observations.” (Doc. 39, at 2).
Court holds in abeyance its ruling on this
portion of defendant's motion in limine. Based on
plaintiffs' representation, it does not appear that they
will present testimony that is so cumulative as to violate
Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, but the Court is
unable to determine that in advance of trial. Therefore,
defendant may object during trial if defendant believes the
testimony is cumulative and the Court will rule on the
objection at that time.
Charts, Calculations, and Reports of Economist Kent
moves for an order in limine barring admission of “any
calculations, charts, or reports from Plaintiffs'
economist Kent Jayne, ” contained in Exhibits 29-35, on
the ground that it would be cumulative of his testimony.
(Doc. 32, at 4). Plaintiffs resist, arguing that the
calculations and reports will be used to assist the jury in
understanding Mr. Jayne's testimony. (Doc. 39, at 3).
During the Final Pretrial Conference, defense counsel
elaborated on this matter, asserting that defendant also
objects to these charts and diagrams on the ground that the
calculations and opinions reflected particularly in Exhibits
32 - 35 contain speculation and are without evidentiary
foundation. For example, defendant argues that the exhibits
include such things as estimates of loss income if plaintiff
Travis Quinn were never able to work again, and defendant
argues there will be no evidence that his injury would cause
him to be unemployed.
Court denies defendant's motion on the
cumulative evidence argument advanced by defendant in its
motion, but reserves ruling on the additional
speculation-type grounds defendant articulated during the
Final Pretrial Conference. Defendant may object, when
appropriate, to any testimony or exhibits from Mr. Jayne that
defendant believes constitutes speculation or is without
adequate foundation and the Court will rule on any such