Ares-Pérez v. Caribe Physicians Plaza Corp., 261 F. Supp. 3d 265

Plaintiff Benjamin Ares-Pérez sued Caribe Physicians Plaza Corp., Dr. José A. Rosario‑Rodríguez, and insurers for emotional damages allegedly resulting from negligent medical care that caused his brother Pedro Ares‑Pérez’s death.
Three plaintiff motions in limine: (1) exclude an August 15, 2013 ER incident report and testimony of Attorney Patricia De Frias who located it; (2) exclude the police report of the bicycle‑auto collision and the decedent’s autopsy report; (3) exclude a confidential settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Dr. Rosario.
Defendants produced the ER report after Dr. Rosario revealed its existence at a February 2017 deposition; the document was produced March 20, 2017 (40 days after discovery became known; 20 days before discovery deadline). De Frias was later disclosed as the custodian/authenticator.
Parties stipulated to the underlying accident and that the decedent suffered severe injuries; causation of death is disputed and central to malpractice claim.
The Court considered Rules 26, 37(c)(1), 401, 403, and 408 in resolving admissibility disputes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of ER incident report and De Frias testimony	ER report was disclosed late; exclusion warranted under FRCP 37(c)(1) for failure to timely disclose and inability to depose preparer Luis Torres	Disclosure occurred promptly after discovery of report; produced before discovery deadline; De Frias to authenticate report; disclosure complied with Rules 26(a)/(e)	Denied — report and De Frias testimony admissible; production deemed timely under Rules 26(a)/(e) so 37(c)(1) exclusion inapplicable
Admissibility of police report and autopsy report	Police report's accident details irrelevant to medical care; autopsy cumulative and unduly prejudicial under FRE 403	Both reports are relevant to causation and whether death was inevitable; autopsy provides non‑party pathologist’s findings; probative value outweighs prejudice	Denied — both reports admissible; relevant to causation and central issues; no unfair prejudice shown
Admissibility of settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Dr. Rosario	Settlement irrelevant, prejudicial, and could confuse jury; would not affect remaining defendants	Defendants seek disclosure to show potential bias and for jury allocation of fault; Rule 408(b) allows other purposes like bias	Granted — settlement excluded; disclosure risks camouflaging causation evidence as bias and would flout Rule 408 policy

Rosa‑Rivera v. Dorado Health, Inc., 787 F.3d 614 (1st Cir. 2015) (discusses need to prove causal nexus in medical malpractice suits)
McInnis v. A.M.F., Inc., 765 F.2d 240 (1st Cir. 1985) (settlement evidence admissibility turns on purpose; Rule 408 limits use to non‑proving purposes)
Portugues‑Santana v. Rekomdiv Int’l, 657 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2011) (Rule 408 bars use of settlements to prove validity or amount of disputed claims)