Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02086/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02086-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

ROBERT FORD SR. and

ANNA FORD PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 05-2086

TRADITIONAL SPORTING GOODS, INC.

d/b/a/ TRADITIONS DEFENDANT 

 

ORDER

Now on this 16th day of April, 2007, there comes on for

consideration various motions and responses of the parties.

They include: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr.

Sam Fadala From Discussing Evidence that Robert Ford, Sr. Used

Smokeless Powder and Brief in Support (Docs. 88-89), Defendant’s

Response (Doc. 105) and Plaintiffs’ Reply (Doc. 114); (2)

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Intoxication

and Brief in Support (Docs. 90-91) and Defendant’s Response and

Brief in Support (Docs. 96-97, 99); (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion in

Limine to Exclude Evidence of Robert Ford, Sr.’s Discharge from

the Military and Brief in Support (Docs. 92-93), Defendant’s

Response (Doc. 104) and Plaintiffs’ Reply (Doc. 113); (4)

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Robert Ford, Sr.’s

Criminal Record and Brief in Support (Docs. 94-95), Defendant’s

Response (Doc. 103) and Plaintiffs’ Reply (Doc. 117); (5)

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs from Using

any Photographs Submitted After the Discovery End Date (Doc.

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 121 Filed 04/16/07 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

107) and Plaintiffs’ Objections and Brief in Support (Docs. 115-

116, 118); (6) Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony

of Jim Briem (Doc. 108) and (7) Defendant’s Motion in Limine to

Exclude Testimony of Randy Wakeman (Doc. 109).

Background

Plaintiffs set forth allegations of strict liability in

tort, breach of implied warranty of marketability, and

negligence. The allegations stem from a hand injury sustained

by Robert Ford while discharging a Traditions Buckhunter PRO InLine .50 caliber rifle.

(1). Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. Sam Fadala

From Discussing Evidence that Robert Ford, Sr. Used Smokeless

Powder

 

Plaintiffs seek an order precluding Defendant’s expert

witness, Dr. Sam Fadala, from testifying that Robert Ford, Sr.

used smokeless powder in the rifle on the date of the accident.

Plaintiffs contend that Dr. Fadala has testified that there is

no evidence that smokeless powder was used and that “all

witnesses are in agreement” that Mr. Ford used Pyrodex RS.

Defendant contends that its position that smokeless powder

contributed to the failure of the rifle’s barrel is neither new

or surprising to Plaintiffs and that Dr. Fadala did, in fact,

disclose this possibility in his deposition.

It is clear from a review of Dr. Fadala’s deposition that

his position is that the barrel failure is similar to cases Dr.

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 121 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

Fadala has seen which were caused by the use of smokeless powder

and that his opinion is that smokeless powder could have

contributed to the barrel failure in this case and this is

despite Mr. Ford’s testimony to the contrary. Plaintiffs will

have ample opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Fadala and to

provide their own expert testimony as to the cause of any barrel

failure. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.

(2). Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of

Intoxication

Plaintiffs seek to exclude any evidence that Robert Ford,

Sr. was under the influence of any alcohol or drugs at the time

of the rifle accident as irrelevant and/or overly prejudicial.

Defendant contends that such evidence could be relevant to its

defense that the accident was caused by Mr. Ford’s improper

loading of the rifle. 

Plaintiffs state that the only evidence reflects that Mr.

Ford was out of his prescription medication for several days

prior to the accident and had ceased using alcohol several years

before the accident. Defendant states that on December 13,

1999, a search warrant was executed on Plaintiffs’ residence

finding numerous marijuana plants in the home. Defendant

contends that Dr. Russell Young, Mr. Ford’s physician, stated

that Mr. Ford is addicted to hydrocodone and has been for ten

years. Further, Defendant states it can show that three days

before the accident, Mr. Ford re-filled a prescription for 120

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 121 Filed 04/16/07 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

hydrocodone tablets. Defendant contends such evidence goes to

Mr. Ford’s credibility as he testified he did not have any pain

medication at the time of the accident and, therefore, could not

have taken any. Defendant states that the jury is entitled to

determine whether Mr. Ford was taking pain medication at the

time of the accident or whether he was addicted to it which

could have affected his ability to properly load the rifle.

The Court finds that instances of Mr. Ford’s prior drug use

is not relevant, and Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. 90) should be

GRANTED. However, such evidence could become proper impeachment

material, and defense counsel shall approach the bench prior to

introducing any evidence or inquiring about of Mr. Ford’s drug

use.

(3). Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Robert

Ford, Sr.’s Discharge from the Military

Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence that Mr. Ford received

an “undesirable” discharge from the military. Defendant states

that the discharge is relevant as Plaintiffs intend to use Mr.

Ford’s military experience to show he was trained in the use of

firearms and admissible to show Mr. Ford had a habit of unsafe

and improper firearm usage.

The Court finds that Mr. Ford’s military discharge due to

alcohol abuse is not admissible to show he had a “habit” of

using firearms while abusing alcohol. However, if Mr. Ford’s

military experience comes into evidence, testimony concerning an

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 121 Filed 04/16/07 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

5

“undesirable” discharge may be proper impeachment evidence.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED, and the attorneys

are instructed to approach the bench prior to admitting such

evidence upon cross-examination.

(4). Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Robert Ford, Sr.’s

Criminal Record 

Plaintiffs move the Court for an order prohibiting any

evidence of Mr. Ford’s prior felony convictions as they are more

than ten years old. Further, Plaintiffs seek to exclude

evidence of a crime for which Mr. Ford was charged in Oregon but

later acquitted.

Defendant contends the crimes are admissible as they

involve dishonesty and false statement. Defendant further

claims that the crimes are admissible to show proximate cause of

the accident as Mr. Ford was a convicted felon and therefore

prohibited from possessing a firearm. Further, Defendant

contends that Mr. Ford’s past convictions will be relevant if

Plaintiffs put Mr. Ford’s character at issue during trial.

Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits the

impeachment of a witness by evidence of criminal convictions in

two instances: (1) if the witness was convicted of a felony and

the court determines the probative value outweighs the

prejudicial effect; or (2) if the witness was convicted of a

crime involving an act of dishonesty or false statement.

Convictions more than ten years old are not admissible unless

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 121 Filed 04/16/07 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

6

the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the

probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts

and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial

effect, and the proponent gives the adverse party sufficient

advance written notice of intent to use such evidence. Fed. R.

Evid. 609(b).

Defendant seeks to introduce evidence that Mr. Ford was

convicted of violating the Arkansas Hot Check Law on September

20, 2000, and of giving false information to police officers on

July 2, 1991. Plaintiffs contend that the probative value is

substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect. The Court

finds that Mr. Ford’s credibility will be an important factor in

this trial and that these convictions are admissible as they may

involve dishonesty and/or false statements. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED (Doc. 95) as to these two

convictions. Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED to the extent that

any otherwise inadmissible felony convictions will not be

admitted to show Mr. Ford was illegally possessing a firearm.

However, Mr. Ford’s criminal history could become proper

impeachment material, and the attorneys are instructed to

approach the bench prior to admitting any such evidence. 

(5). Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs from

Using any Photographs Submitted After the Discovery End Date

Defendant moves the Court to prohibit Plaintiffs’ expert,

Dr. Morse, from referring to or using certain photographs that

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 121 Filed 04/16/07 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

7

Defendant contends Plaintiffs provided on August 7, 2006, three

days after the discovery deadline. Plaintiffs contend that

Defendant requested that Dr. Morse take the photographs on

August 3, 2006, and Plaintiffs provided Defendant the

photographs on August 7, 2006. The discovery deadline was

August 4, 2006. Defendant contends it would be “highly

prejudicial” to allow the photographs into evidence since

Defendant was unable to question Dr. Morse about the photographs

and/or to provide them to Defendant’s own expert.

The Court does not believe that the production of these

photographs three days after the discovery deadline is

sufficiently prejudicial to exclude them from evidence.

However, the Court makes no ruling on the otherwise

admissibility of the photographs, and Plaintiffs will be

required to properly authenticate and identify the photographs

prior to their admission into evidence.

(6-7). Defendant’s Motions in Limine to Exclude Jim Briem and

Randy Wakeman

Defendant seeks to exclude Jim Briem and Randy Wakeman from

testifying as either expert or fact witnesses during trial.

Defendant contends Plaintiffs never disclosed either Briem or

Wakeman as an expert in accordance with the Federal Rules nor do

Briem or Wakeman have any personal knowledge of relevant

information in this case. Plaintiffs have not responded to

either motion.

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 121 Filed 04/16/07 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

8

Rule 602 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states:

[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless

evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding

that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.

Fed. R. Evid. 602.

While the Court does not believe Plaintiffs intend to offer

Briem and Wakeman as expert witnesses, the Court finds that

Defendant’s Motions (Docs. 108-09) should be GRANTED. To the

extent Plaintiffs intend to offer Briem and Wakeman as lay

witnesses, the Court may reconsider this ruling prior to trial

provided Plaintiffs make a showing that Briem and Wakeman

possess first-hand information that is relevant to the issues in

this case. 

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine

to Exclude Dr. Sam Fadala from Discussing Evidence that Robert

Ford, Sr. Used Smokeless Powder (Doc. 88) is DENIED; Plaintiffs’

Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Intoxication (Doc. 91)

is GRANTED; Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Robert Ford,

Sr.’s Criminal Record (Doc. 94) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART; Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Robert

Ford, Sr.’s Discharge from the Military (Doc. 92) is GRANTED;

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs from Using

any Photographs Submitted After the Discovery End Date (Doc.

107) is DENIED; Defendant’s Motions in Limine to Exclude Jim

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 121 Filed 04/16/07 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

9

Briem and Randy Wakeman (Docs. 108-09) are GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2007.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson 

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 121 Filed 04/16/07 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>