Uzhca v. Walmart Stores Inc.

Background

Luis Uzhca and Maria Smith brought a diversity personal-injury action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Sam’s East, Inc., and Inland-Greenburgh Delaware Business Trust. Uzhca was injured on May 29, 2015, while opening a trailer containing cardboard bales delivered from Sam’s East. The bales fell, a trailer door struck Uzhca, and a bale crushed and broke his right foot. The court had previously denied the defendants’ request for summary judgment, leaving factual issues for a jury.

The trial had been postponed after Uzhca’s counsel disclosed that Uzhca had suffered another injury in an April 2022 vehicle accident. The court said additional discovery was needed before trial. The opinion addressed six motions in limine—requests to decide evidentiary issues before trial—and the defendants’ motion for sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rulings on the Defendants’ Motions

The court denied the defendants’ motion at ECF No. 164, which sought to bar references to securing the cardboard load. The court held that load securement was relevant to the jury’s assessment of the trailer’s condition and the expert testimony.

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion at ECF No. 165. It granted the request to bar evidence of the defendants’ wealth, size, financial status, and profits, subject to possible admission for impeachment if a witness opened the door. It also barred evidence of unrelated accidents, claims, and settlements unless their conditions were substantially similar to the accident at issue. But it denied the request to categorically bar the plaintiffs from using the “Reptile Theory” tactic or asking questions about a general safety standard. The court warned that repetitive questions with little relevance would not be allowed.

The court denied the defendants’ motion at ECF No. 166. The motion sought to preclude testimony from Dr. Richard Radna and Dr. James Gallina concerning whether Uzhca’s cervical fusion was related to the 2015 accident. The court also denied the requested hearing concerning the reliability of that testimony and denied the request to dismiss the related damages claims. The court treated the causation and scope of injury as disputed factual issues for the factfinder.

Rulings on the Plaintiffs’ Motions

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ omnibus motion at ECF No. 167. The defendants could not apologize to the jury for the injuries, although they could say that no party wished an accident or injury to occur. The court barred references to the plaintiffs’ financial status and the statement “anyone can file a lawsuit.” It did not categorically bar statements that the plaintiffs sued for financial gain, evidence of marital or parental status, citizenship, collateral-source payments, prior convictions, arrests, or charges, because relevant evidence could be admitted and prejudicial evidence could be excluded at trial. The court also allowed the defendants to raise failure to mitigate and to attribute responsibility to nonparty American Paper. It allowed relevant evidence that there had been no prior accidents.

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion at ECF No. 168 concerning defense expert Christopher Ferrone. Ferrone could testify about industry practices based on his knowledge and experience, including the ISRI guideline. He could not base testimony about the accident on accident reconstruction because he had not reconstructed this accident. He could not interpret federal regulations, testify about the meaning or applicability of those regulations, testify about whether they were violated or delegable, or testify about the applicability of the Savage rule. He also could not speculate about other witnesses’ state of mind. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a hearing concerning the reliability of the expert testimony.

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion at ECF No. 169 concerning defense expert Dr. Scott V. Haig. Dr. Haig could not call Uzhca a “malingerer,” state that Uzhca was malingering, or testify about Uzhca’s state of mind. He could testify about movements he personally observed during the examination and offer medical opinions about inconsistencies between Uzhca’s reported symptoms and objective impairment.

Sanctions and Late-Disclosed Materials

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ sanctions motion at ECF No. 195. It barred materials produced or served by the plaintiffs after August 1, 2022, in violation of the court’s earlier discovery order. Only Dr. Radna’s report based on his March 18, 2019 examination was admissible. The later supplemental version and testimony concerning examinations or medical-record reviews after March 18, 2019 were barred, subject to the court’s stated limitation for diagnostic films already mentioned or reviewed in the 2019 report.

The court also barred Dr. Daniel Zelazny’s August 11, 2022 notes and related testimony; Dr. Darren Friedman’s updated report, August 4, 2022 notes, September 1, 2022 notes, and related testimony; and Dr. Landis Barnes’s testimony and medical records. Uzhca could not claim that he was unable to work as a delivery driver based on Dr. Radna’s post-March 2019 examination. The defendants could introduce evidence that Uzhca was driving when he was involved in the April 2022 vehicle collision. The court denied the defendants’ request for expenses and attorney’s fees.

Disposition

The court’s final dispositions were: defendants’ motion at ECF No. 164 was denied; defendants’ motion at ECF No. 165 was granted in part and denied in part; defendants’ motion at ECF No. 166 was denied; plaintiffs’ motions at ECF Nos. 167, 168, and 169 were each granted in part and denied in part; and defendants’ motion at ECF No. 195 was granted in part and denied in part. The parties were directed to appear for an in-person pretrial conference on May 3, 2023. This opinion resolved pretrial evidence and sanctions issues; it did not decide which party would ultimately prevail on the personal-injury claims.