United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
VICTOR
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On the
night of March 2, 2017, Garry Aszmus
(“Plaintiff”), who worked as a Lineman for
Metro-North Railroad Company (“Defendant, ” or
“Metro-North”), fell after “his foot caught
on unlevel black pavement.” Joint Trial Mem., ECF No.
45, at 2 (“Nature of the Case . . . . Stipulations of
Fact and Law[.]”).
On
December 20, 2017, Mr. Aszmus filed this case under the
Federal Employers' Liability Act (“FELA”), 45
U.S.C. § 51 et seq.
Before
the trial scheduled on July 8, 2019, the parties filed five
motions in limine: (1) Mr. Aszmus moves to preclude
evidence of his other accidents and injuries, and specific
workplace disciplinary incidents, Pl. Mot. in limine
to Preclude Evid. of Unrelated Accidents, Injuries or Claims
and of Any Discipline, ECF No. 46; (2) Mr. Aszmus moves to
preclude evidence of benefits received from the Railroad
Retirement Board, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and
others, Pl. Mot. in limine to Preclude Any Ev. of
Collateral Source Benefits from Any Source, ECF No. 47; (3)
Mr. Aszmus moves to preclude Metro-North from offsetting sick
leave benefits from any judgment obtained in this action, Pl.
Mot. in limine to Preclude Metro-North from
Offsetting Collateral Source Sick Leave Benefits from Any J.,
ECF No. 48; (4) Metro-North moves to preclude certain
testimony from Mr. Aszmus's replacement medical expert,
Dr. Murphy, Mot. in limine Re: Medical Op. Test.,
ECF No. 56; and (5) Metro-North moves to preclude
Plaintiff's counsel from making certain punitive damages
statements to the jury, Mot. in limine Re: Arg. On
Type of Damages Recoverable, ECF No. 57.
For the
reasons below, the Court rules as follows: (1) Mr.
Aszmus's motion to preclude evidence of unrelated
injuries and workplace disciplinary incidents, ECF No. 46, is
DENIED without prejudice to the possibility
of renewal at trial; (2) Mr. Aszmus's motion to preclude
evidence of collateral source benefits, ECF No. 47, is
DENIED without prejudice to the possibility
of renewal at trial; (3) Mr. Aszmus's motion to preclude
Metro-North from offsetting sick leave benefits from any
judgment obtained in this action, ECF No. 48, is
DENIED without prejudice to the possibility
of renewal at trial; (4) Metro-North's motion to preclude
certain testimony from Mr. Aszmus's replacement medical
expert, Dr. Murphy, ECF No. 56, is DENIED in
part as to any testimony regarding the number of ribs
allegedly fractured by Mr. Aszmus and otherwise
DENIED without prejudice to the possibility
of renewal at trial; and (5) Metro-North's motion to
preclude Plaintiff's counsel from making certain punitive
damages statements to the jury, ECF No. 57, is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without
prejudice to the possibility of renewal at trial.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.
Factual Background
On
March 2, 2017, Mr. Aszmus worked as a Lineman at
Metro-North's Stamford, Connecticut station. Compl., ECF
No. 1, ¶ 8; Joint Trial Mem. at 2. While “walking
to the back of a Metro-North truck, ” he allegedly
tripped on uneven and unconnected pavement and fell to the
ground.” Compl. ¶ 9. He seeks to hold Metro-North
“legally responsible for the accident site including
any maintenance, repairs, or improvements.” Joint Trial
Mem. at 2 (Stipulations of Fact and Law”) (citing
12/20/2018 MNR Resp. to Req. to Admit).
Mr.
Aszmus alleges that Metro-North failed to properly light,
level, grade, fill, inspect, and repair the area where he
fell. Compl. ¶ 11. He claims that Metro-North did not
have routine inspection policies in place or failed to post
warnings about the condition of the pavement where he fell.
Id. As a result of his fall, Mr. Aszmus allegedly
sustained a “broken wrist, several broken ribs and
severe contusions to his face.” Compl. ¶ 12. Mr.
Aszmus also allegedly “lost wages and benefits,
incurred medical expenses, suffered physical pain and mental
anguish and will continue to do so in the future, and has an
impairment to his future earning capacity.” Compl.
¶ 14.
B.
Procedural Background
On
December 20, 2017, Mr. Aszmus filed his Complaint against
Metro-North. Compl.
On
February 23, 2018 Metro-North filed its Answer, largely
denying and claiming insufficient knowledge of the claims in
Mr. Aszmus's Complaint. Answer, ECF No. 12. Metro-North
also asserted three affirmative defenses: (1) Mr.
Aszmus's “injuries and damages were caused in whole
or in part by his own carelessness and negligence”
(e.g., failure to observe his surroundings), id. at
3; (2) Metro-North is “entitled to a set off and/or
credit for payments made by it or on its behalf to the
plaintiff or on the plaintiff's behalf for medical
expenses and other benefits for which it is entitled to
credit or right of reimbursement pursuant to any applicable
collective bargaining agreement, ” id.; and
(3) Mr. Aszmus “failed to properly and adequately
mitigate any damages he may have suffered or
sustained.” id.
On May
10, 2019, the parties filed their joint trial memorandum,
Joint Trial Mem., and motions in limine, ECF Nos.
46-48, 56-57.
On May
16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a supplement to the joint trial
memorandum. Pl. Supp. to the Parties' Joint Trial Mem.,
ECF No. 58.
On May
31, 2019, the parties filed their objections to the motions
in limine. Pl. Mem. in Opp. to Def. Mot. in
limine Re: Medical Op. Test., ECF No. 59; Pl. Mem. in
Opp. to Metro-North's Mot. in limine Re: Arg. on
Type of Damages Recoverable, ECF No. 60; Obj. to Mot. in
limine Re: Prior Discipline, Accidents, and Injuries,
ECF No. 61; Obj. to Mot. in limine Re: Collateral
Sources & Sick Leave, ECF No. 62.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Motions
in limine provide district courts the opportunity to
rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance
of certain forecasted evidence. See Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2; Palmieri v.
Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996). “A
district court's inherent authority to manage the course
of its trials encompasses the right to rule on motions in
limine.” Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v.
Schneider, 551 F.Supp.2d 173, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
A court
should only exclude evidence on motions in limine if
the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential
grounds. Levinson v. Westport Nat'l Bank, No.
09-cv-1955 (VLB), 2013 WL 3280013, at *3 (D. Conn. June 27,
2013). The court also retains discretion to reserve judgment
on some or all motions in limine until trial so that
the motions are placed in the appropriate factual context.
See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab.
Litig., 643 F.Supp.2d 471, 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting
United States v. Chan, 184 F.Supp.2d 337, 340
(S.D.N.Y. 2002)); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
Pittsburgh, Pa. v. L.E. Myers Co., 937 F.Supp. 276, 287
(S.D.N.Y. 1996); Silver v. Law Offices of Howard Lee
Schiff, P.C., No. 3:09CV912 (PCD), 2010 WL 3000053, at
*5 (D. Conn. July 28, 2010).
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Accident, Injury, and Workplace Discipline Evidence
Rule
403 permits courts to “exclude [any]
relevant[1] evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading
the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403.
Mr.
Aszmus moves to preclude evidence of five accidents or
injuries, mostly motorcycle-related, and five disciplinary
incidents. Pl. Mot. in limine to Preclude Evid. of
Unrelated Accidents, Injuries or Claims and of Any Discipline
at 1-2. He argues that the admission of prior injuries or
disciplinary incidents could prejudice the jury “to
think the plaintiff is injury prone or accident prone . . .
or a bad person.” Pl. Mot. in limine to
Preclude Evid. of Unrelated Accidents, Injuries or Claims and
of Any Discipline at 3. He further argues that these
accidents, injuries, and infractions are not relevant to this
case and that any probative value from their ...