Abreu Bautista v. Pagan-Rodriguez

Background

Trial was scheduled to begin on October 20, 2025. Defendants Angel Luis Pagan-Rodriguez and PFG Transco, Inc. filed a motion under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, commonly called a Daubert motion, seeking to exclude portions of the testimony of Plaintiff Julio A Monserrate Rivera’s medical expert, Samuel Hess, and liability expert, Ali M. Sadegh. Defendants also filed a motion in limine, meaning a request to restrict evidence at trial. Monserrate filed his own motion in limine seeking sanctions under Rule 37(e) for the alleged loss or destruction of dash-camera footage.

The court noted that the parties had settled all claims brought by Yeiro Jose Abreu Bautista after defendants filed their Daubert motion. The court therefore limited its ruling on that motion to opinions concerning Monserrate.

Daubert Motion

The court excluded Dr. Hess’s opinions that Monserrate was likely to need future lumbar-fusion and cervical surgery and that those procedures would cost approximately $500,000 each in surgeon, assistant, facility, and anesthesia charges. Although Hess relied on his medical experience, medical records, and examination of Monserrate, he did not explain how his experience supported the conclusions. He cited no literature, provided no data supporting the cost estimates, and did not identify the type of cervical surgery that might be required. The court concluded that the opinions lacked a reliable methodology and were connected to the available information only by the expert’s assertion.

The court also excluded the portion of Dr. Sadegh’s opinion stating that Pagan-Rodriguez was exhibiting a “chasing maneuver” or “road rage” when the accident allegedly occurred. Monserrate acknowledged that the opinion was a deduction from lane changes, speed, and Pagan-Rodriguez’s demeanor shown in the video. The court held that the jury could watch the video and draw those conclusions without expert assistance. The court therefore granted defendants’ Daubert motion in full.

Motions in Limine

Monserrate sought sanctions based on the alleged spoliation of dash-camera footage. Spoliation means the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or failure to preserve evidence for expected litigation. The court held that sanctions under Rule 37(e) require proof that relevant evidence was lost. The record showed that defendants produced the footage, although they produced it after the parties’ depositions. Because belatedly produced evidence is not lost or destroyed, the court denied Monserrate’s motion for spoliation sanctions. The court did not decide whether the late production might support some other type of sanction because Monserrate moved only under Rule 37(e).

Defendants separately moved to exclude Monserrate’s proposed evidence concerning liability insurance. Monserrate stated that he intended to offer that evidence only if the court’s sanctions ruling required the jury to decide defendants’ state of mind in withholding or destroying video evidence. Because the court’s ruling required no such jury finding, it granted defendants’ motion in limine as unopposed.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted defendants’ Daubert motion and motion in limine, and denied Monserrate’s motion in limine. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 73, 87, and 91.