Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00961/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00961-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Stephanie McCollum, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UPS Ground Freight Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-0961-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 The Court held a final conference with the parties on January 10, 2013. During 

the conference, the Court addressed Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence 

of Alleged Mistakes in Defendants’ Driver’s Log Books and Any Reference to Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations Section 395.8. Doc. 108. The Court took the motion 

under advisement, and will now grant it in part and deny it in part. 

 The Court previously has understood Plaintiff to be asserting that the inaccurate 

log books were relevant to punitive damages because they help explain the fatigue Mr. 

Duenas allegedly was suffering on the day of the accident – fatigue Plaintiff claims 

caused the accident. As the Court said in ruling on Defendants’ motion for 

reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling, “Plaintiff alleges that financial 

incentives led Mr. Duenas to falsify his log books by driving when he should have been 

out of service and understating the length of time for vehicle safety inspections. . . . Log 

books that inaccurately report the length of time that Mr. Duenas was in service, if 

motivated by financial interests as Plaintiff alleges, may demonstrate that Mr. Duenas 

Case 2:11-cv-00961-DGC Document 132 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

allowed himself to become so fatigued that he drove through the intersection on a red 

light.” Doc. 86 at 3. 

 At the conference on January 10, 2013, however, Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that 

the log books are relevant to punitive damages for other reasons: (1) the log books show 

that Duenas and Maldanado did not conduct safety inspections of their truck, or 

conducted only cursory inspections, demonstrating that they ignored safety; (2) the log 

books contain blank information in areas where Duenas and Maldanado were required to 

record the results of inspections, again showing a disregard for safety; (3) the log books 

show that Duenas and Maldanado sometimes failed to record the total miles they drove in 

a day and the total miles the truck travelled in a day; and (4) the books show significantly 

different times for when the truck arrived in Phoenix on the day of the accident. 

 Points one and two are not related to driver fatigue. They may show that the 

drivers were not inspecting the truck as required, but a lack of inspections would not 

contribute to fatigue. 

 The third point shows that Duenas and Maldanado were not recording total 

mileage on some days, but that too is unrelated to fatigue. The log books contain 

complete time records for when each driver was driving, in the sleeper birth, off duty, or 

on duty and not driving, and Plaintiff’s counsel does not claim that these time entries are 

inaccurate. Plaintiff’s counsel instead argued at the conference that these entries show 

that Duenas and Maldanado were driving when they should have been conducting 

inspections – that they accurately reflect the actual driving time. When the drivers’ 

activities for each 24-hour period can be seen in the log books, the absence of total 

mileage in the books cannot be said to reflect behavior that would cause fatigue. Time in 

the driver’s seat, not total mileage, is relevant to fatigue. 

 The fourth point shows that Duenas and Maldanado recorded different times for 

when they arrived in Phoenix on the day of the accident. Duenas recorded 12:45 p.m. 

and Maldanado recorded 8:30 a.m. This four-hour discrepancy could be indicative of 

Case 2:11-cv-00961-DGC Document 132 Filed 01/11/13 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

fatigue. It certainly is more of a discrepancy than can be attributed to different watches. 

And because the log entries were made on the day they arrived in Phoenix, it cannot 

reasonably be attributed to faded memories. 

 With this understanding of the log books in mind, the Court must consider their 

relevance to punitive damages – the only issue on which Plaintiff seeks to present them. 

Arizona courts have recognized an “overarching principle . . . that the conduct giving rise 

to punitive damages must be a proximate cause of the harm inflicted.” Saucedo ex rel. 

Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 24 P.3d 1274, 1279 (Ariz. App. 2001). “The proximate cause 

of an injury is defined in Arizona as ‘that which, in a natural and continuous sequence, 

unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces an injury, and without which the 

injury would not have occurred.’” Id. at 1278 (quoting Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of 

Am., Inc., 789 P.2d 1040, 1047 (Ariz. 1990)). 

 Plaintiff does not contend that the lack of inspections or any resulting safety 

problems caused or contributed to the accident. Indeed, Plaintiff previously admitted that 

a bald tire on the truck was not a proximate cause of the accident. Doc. 81 at 8. Plaintiff 

instead claims that Duenas was driving while fatigued and failed to see or respond to the 

red light. Log book entries that reflect a lack of inspections and a disregard for the safety 

conditions of the truck therefore cannot be said to be a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s 

injuries. Nor can the absence of total mileage entries be said to reflect activities that 

contributed to the accident when the log books themselves show the activities of the 

drivers for the full 24-hour period of each day. The lack of inspections and total mileage 

entries did not, in a natural and continuous sequence, produce the accident. Stated 

differently, a reasonable jury could not conclude that the accident would not have 

occurred if Duenas and Maldanado had inspected the truck or recorded their total 

mileage. Because these inaccuracies are not evidence of events that proximately caused 

Plaintiff’s injuries, they are not relevant to punitive damages. Saucedo, 24 P.3d at 1279. 

The Court will grant the motion in limine on these inaccuracies. 

Case 2:11-cv-00961-DGC Document 132 Filed 01/11/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 The same is not true of the discrepancies in arrival time. The four-hour difference 

between Duenas’ and Maldanado’s contemporaneous log books could be viewed as 

evidence of fatigue. The Court therefore will deny the motion in limine with respect to 

these entries. Plaintiff may present the page from each driver’s log book that reflects this 

discrepancy, assuming proper evidentiary foundations are laid. The pages may not be 

used to argue the points that have been excluded above. 

 Given this ruling, the Court also concludes that the motion in limine should be 

granted with respect to Plaintiff’s desired reference to 49 C.F.R. § 395.8. The regulation 

required Defendants to maintain accurate log books with respect to specific categories of 

information, and would be relevant if the jurors were asked to review the log books and 

compare the drivers’ entries to the requirements of the regulation, something that will not 

occur given the Court’s ruling above. The Court concludes that admission of the 

regulation would unnecessarily complicate the jury’s task and may result in confusion 

when there is little or no evidence to which it applies. The Court also concludes that the 

reference to criminal prosecution in the regulation could result in unfair prejudice that 

substantially outweighs the very limited probative value of the regulation. The Court 

therefore will exclude the regulation under Rule 403.1

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion in limine (Doc. 108) is granted in 

part and denied in part as set forth above. 

Dated this 11th day of January, 2013. 

 

1

 Given the rulings in this order, the Court also wishes to make clear, if it has not 

in prior orders, that evidence of the bald tire will not be admissible. As noted, Plaintiff 

concedes that the bald tire did not cause or contribute to the accident, and it therefore is 

not relevant on the question of punitive damages under Saucedo. 

Case 2:11-cv-00961-DGC Document 132 Filed 01/11/13 Page 4 of 4