Wright v. Watkins and Shepard Trucking, Inc., 2:11-cv-01575

Background

This is a motor-vehicle negligence action against a truck driver (Gregory Britt) and his employer (Watkins and Shepard Trucking) set for bench trial; defendants filed three groups of motions in limine challenging various testimony and evidence.
Plaintiffs rely on medical experts (Dr. Schifini, Dr. Siegler), economic experts (Enrique Vega, Terrance Clauretie), and a rebuttal accident reconstructionist (Brian Jones).
Defendants moved to exclude: qualifications and methodologies of medical and economic experts; untimely disclosures and undisclosed witnesses; prior citations/convictions and post-accident evidence (DOT investigation, refresher course); demonstratives and hospital photos; and other categories of evidence as irrelevant or prejudicial.
The court emphasized this is a bench trial and thus evidentiary rulings often can and should be deferred to trial where context assists assessment; in bench trials, doubts are resolved more permissively in favor of admissibility.
The court denied many exclusionary requests (finding challenges go to weight, not admissibility, or that defendants suffered no prejudice) but granted specific exclusions: nolo contendere plea/conviction evidence, evidence relevant only to punitive damages (Watkins & Shepard’s conduct and financial condition), litigation-induced stress damages, exclusion of trial representative as witness (unless disclosed), liability insurance, and courtroom-presence commentary; several other motions were denied without prejudice and reserved for trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualification of Dr. Schifini to opine on work-life capacity, loss earnings, long-term care	Schifini is a licensed physician with decades of experience evaluating and coordinating care for brain/back/head injuries and testifying on work evaluations	Unqualified because not a neurologist or neuropsychologist	Denied — Schifini is sufficiently experienced and qualified to testify
Methodology of Drs. Schifini and Siegler (and untimely addendum)	Methodologies are acceptable; addendum produced and defendants deposed the doctor earlier	Opinions unreliable; Siegler addendum untimely under FRCP 26(e)	Denied — methodology challenges go to weight; addendum untimely but not prejudicial, allowed
Qualifications/methodology of economic experts (Vega, Clauretie)	Experts are qualified and used accepted methodologies supported by literature	Methodologies are flawed and should be excluded	Denied — experts qualified; objections go to weight
Scope of rebuttal expert Brian Jones and his animation	Jones is qualified; animation based on Britts’s testimony and proper foundation	Jones limited to rebuttal only; animation inaccurate and untimely	Partly denied/reserved — Jones qualified but testimony limited to rebuttal scope; animation and related challenges reserved for trial
Admission of misdemeanor citation, nolo contendere plea, conviction	Plaintiffs would use citation/conviction to impeach Britt	Such plea/judgment is inadmissible under FRE 410 and Nevada law	Granted — exclude plea/conviction evidence (investigative reports remain admissible)
Evidence relating to punitive damages, employer conduct, and financial condition of Watkins & Shepard	Plaintiffs reserve right to use if relevant for rebuttal	Such evidence irrelevant because summary judgment granted on negligent employment/supervision and punitive claims	Granted — exclude evidence of Watkins & Shepard’s financial condition and conduct related to punitive claim
Photographs/videos of Plaintiff in hospital	Relevant to injury and damages	Unduly prejudicial and not probative	Denied — for bench trial, court will weigh probative vs. prejudicial at trial
Litigation-induced stress damages and Golden Rule/social-moral arguments	Plaintiffs seek full testimony on emotional suffering	Such litigation-induced stress is not recoverable; Golden Rule arguments unfairly prejudicial	Granted — exclude litigation-induced stress claims and Golden Rule appeals
Demonstrative aids, liability insurance, courtroom presence comments	Plaintiffs agreed to mutual limitations; demonstratives should be disclosed pre-opening	Defendants sought preclusion/advance disclosure	Granted as to liability insurance and courtroom presence; demonstratives must be disclosed to opposing counsel in advance

Key Cases Cited

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (bench trial movants’ in limine rulings are not binding and may be revisited)
Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (motions in limine framework and prudence of deferring some rulings)
Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379 (definition of relevance under the Federal Rules of Evidence)
Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2001) (excluding evidence that will inflame or distract factfinder)
Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (methodology inquiry for expert opinion is flexible; experience can support admissibility)
Dickenson v. Cardiac & Thoracic Surgery of E. Tenn., 388 F.3d 976 (6th Cir.) (experience may justify admitting a physician’s opinion despite lacking supporting literature)
Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396 (3d Cir.) (experience as a basis for admitting expert testimony)
United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.) (bench-trial context and treatment of in limine rulings)