Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC

Background

The court considered five motions in limine, which are requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence or testimony may be presented. The case involves Feamster’s property-damage claim. The opinion also refers to a parallel state-court case involving personal-injury allegations.

Motion in Limine No. 1: Expert Testimony and Evidence

The court granted Gaco Western’s motion to exclude expert testimony and evidence Feamster might offer at trial. The court found that Feamster failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), which requires a written expert report containing, among other things, a complete statement of the opinions the expert will express and the bases for those opinions. Under Rule 37(c), undisclosed information or witnesses generally may not be used at trial unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. The court found prejudice because discovery had closed and Gaco Western had not had the opportunity to depose the witnesses about their opinions. Feamster was therefore precluded from calling any experts at trial.

Motion in Limine No. 2: Personal Injuries and Medical Issues

The court granted Gaco Western’s motion to exclude references to or evidence of Feamster’s medical issues, disabilities, or personal injuries. Feamster acknowledged that this case concerns property damage and that he was not seeking personal-injury damages, but argued that discussing his medical issues would help explain how he presented his case. The court ruled that these topics were not relevant to the property-damage claim and that any marginal relevance was outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues and wasting time. The court stated that the parallel state-court case was the place for those topics.

Motion in Limine No. 3: Lost Rental Value and Income

The court granted Gaco Western’s motion to exclude references to or evidence of alleged lost rental value or rental income. The court ruled that Feamster was required to disclose these categories of damages under Rule 26(a)(1). Information provided during a settlement conference or about a month before trial, after discovery had closed, did not satisfy that requirement. The court excluded the evidence under Rule 37(c).

Motion in Limine No. 4: Undisclosed Evidence

The court granted Gaco Western’s motion to exclude evidence Feamster had not disclosed during discovery in this case. Feamster argued that he had produced more than 4,000 pages and more than 70 exhibits in the state-court action. The court ruled that materials produced in the state case did not satisfy the disclosure requirements for this separate federal case. Any evidence offered at trial had to be shown, by Bates number or another verifiable method, to have been produced before discovery closed in compliance with the applicable federal rules. The court stated that the trial would be limited to the property-damage claim.

Motion in Limine No. 5: Feamster’s Testimony

The court denied Gaco Western’s motion to prevent Feamster from testifying at trial. Gaco Western argued that Feamster had not provided deposition testimony and had not cooperated in discovery. The court relied on its earlier ruling that Gaco Western’s failure to depose Feamster was its own responsibility because Gaco Western was responsible for conducting discovery before the deadline and timely raising discovery problems. The court found that no sanction was warranted for conduct Gaco Western had not timely raised before discovery closed.

Disposition

The court granted Defendant’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and denied Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 5.