Leon v. TransAm Trucking, Inc.

Background

Letitia Leon sued TransAm Trucking, Inc. and Gregree Allen Tobie after her car came into contact with a truck driven by Tobie and owned by TransAm on or about December 19, 2017. Leon alleges that the collision occurred in the Bronx and caused her permanent injuries. She alleged that Tobie was negligent by, among other things, driving too fast, making an illegal left turn, and failing to yield.

The case was removed from New York state court to the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction. The court’s case-management orders set deadlines for fact discovery, expert disclosures, and expert discovery. The orders stated that the deadlines would be extended only by further court order for good cause. Leon never designated Officer Efrain Ayala as an expert witness or sought an extension of the expert-disclosure deadline.

Motions in Limine

Defendants filed three motions asking the court to exclude evidence at the scheduled jury trial. They sought to exclude: (1) evidence of Tobie’s prior criminal convictions, the last of which was 13 years old; (2) testimony by lay eyewitness Maritza DeJesus that the turn she observed Tobie make was illegal; and (3) opinion testimony by Officer Ayala about the cause of the collision.

Leon did not oppose the first two motions and represented that she would not question Tobie about convictions occurring more than 10 years before the trial date or elicit testimony from DeJesus that the turn was illegal. The court therefore stated that it would preclude that evidence and testimony.

Officer Ayala’s Proposed Testimony

Leon did not offer Ayala as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court stated that, even if she had done so, the testimony would not be allowed under that rule because Leon missed the required expert-disclosure deadlines. The court also noted that Leon still had not designated Ayala as an expert or made the alternative disclosure available for certain expert testimony that does not require a full expert report.

The court separately considered whether Ayala could offer the opinion as lay testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701. Lay opinion testimony must be based on the witness’s own perception, help the jury understand the testimony or decide a disputed fact, and not depend on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.

The court found that Ayala arrived after the collision and had no firsthand knowledge of what caused it. His proposed opinion was based on his after-the-fact observations, interviews with the drivers, and conclusions about fault. The court ruled that this went beyond facts he personally perceived.

The court also found that the proposed opinion depended at least partly on Ayala’s police training and experience. Because opinions relying on specialized knowledge must be evaluated under the expert-testimony rule, the court concluded that the opinion was not admissible as lay testimony. The court additionally questioned whether a broad opinion about responsibility would be helpful to the jury.

Ruling

The court granted Defendants’ motions in limine. It precluded evidence regarding Tobie’s prior convictions and barred DeJesus from testifying that the turn was illegal. Ayala may testify about what he did and did not observe at the scene, but he may not offer opinions about the cause of the incident. Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on February 13, 2020.