Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06412/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06412-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

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

1

To the extent the motion seeks to exclude evidence of other types of damages on

discovery grounds, the motion is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to defendant’s later

objection to specific offers based on a failure to disclose or other grounds.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

YANG MING (AMERICA) CORPORATION,

Defendant /

No. C-07-6412 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7

Before the Court is defendant Yang Ming (America) Corporation’s “Motion in Limine

No. 7 to Exclude Evidence Not Produced Pursuant to Rule 26(a),” filed March 9, 2010. 

Plaintiff Darryl Jackson has filed opposition. The matter came before the Court at the

Pretrial Conference conducted on March 23, 2010, at which time the Court deferred ruling

thereon in order to read and consider case authority submitted at the Pretrial Conference. 

Further, at the Pretrial Conference, the parties clarified that the primary issue presented by

the motion is whether plaintiff should be precluded from offering evidence of his alleged

future wage loss, in light of plaintiff’s not having disclosed evidence of the value of such

loss in the form of an after-tax calculation.1

 The Court now rules on that issue as follows.

//

Case 3:07-cv-06412-MMC Document 83 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Although the authorities cited by defendant acknowledge that, in an action brought

by an injured longshoreman who alleges a loss of future earnings, “the lost stream of

income should be estimated in after-tax terms,” see Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer,

462 U.S. 523, 537 (1983), nothing in those authorities suggests the plaintiff bears the

burden of producing evidence as to such tax consequences. See Norfolk & Western R. Co.

v. Liepelt, 444 U.S. 490, 492-96 (1980) (holding trial court erred by excluding defendant’s

expert’s testimony as to amount of taxes decedent would have paid had he worked until his

expected retirement age; describing defendant’s proffered evidence as “relevant”). Indeed,

other authority has directly held such burden to rest with the defendant. See Bergen v. F/V

St. Patrick, 816 F.2d 1345, 1351 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding where defendant did not “seek to

introduce evidence relating to taxation,” trial court did not err by not reducing amount of

plaintiff’s lost future earnings “to account for taxation of those earnings”; stating Ninth

Circuit has “specifically rejected a rule requiring the admission of such evidence”); see also

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Williams, 497 S.E. 2d 66, 68 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (holding

“federal cases plac[e] the burden on defendant to show the applicable taxes before a [jury

instruction] that the lost income portion of the award should be reduced by taxes is

appropriate”) (collecting cases).

In sum, plaintiff, in establishing his future wage loss, need not offer evidence of such

loss in the form of an after-tax calculation.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06412-MMC Document 83 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2