Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00295/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00295-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM M. HENDERSON and, 

PAMELA STAFFORD,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES 

NORTH AMERICA, LTD., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 3:11-CV-295-WKW

 [WO]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court are two motions: (1) Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion in Limine

(Doc. # 209); and (2) Plaintiff Pamela Stafford’s Motion in Limine (Doc. # 214). 

The motions are fully briefed. After careful consideration of the arguments of 

counsel, the appropriate law, and the allegations set forth in the amended 

complaint, the court finds that the motions are due to be granted in part, denied in 

part, and reserved in part.

I. Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion in Limine (Doc. # 209)

A. Collateral Source Payments

Ruling on this motion is deferred.

Case 3:11-cv-00295-WKW-CSC Document 260 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 6
2

B. Expert Testimony of Mr. Scavuzzo

Plaintiffs object to “any reference to or evidence, testimony, or argument 

concerning any opinions or conclusions” rendered by Mr. Scavuzzo. (Doc. # 209 

at 3.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendant did not comply with the Court’s Rule 26(f) 

Order based on Defendant’s failure to properly identify Mr. Scavuzzo in their 

initial disclosures or during their depositions. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Scavuzzo 

did not provide a signed written report and that he has no opinions specific to this 

case.

Mr. Scavuzzo is an employee of Defendant and has not been retained as an 

expert in this case; therefore, he is not required to submit signed written reports. 

Because Mr. Scavuzzo’s circumstances relevant to this case do not meet the 

requirements set forth in Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude expert 

evidence or testimony from him is denied.

C. Any Static or Dynamic Inflation Retention Tests Evidence by 

Defendant

Plaintiffs object to any evidence and testimony regarding Defendant’s 

Inflation Retention test(s) because they are not relevant and will confuse the jury. 

Defendant argues that “the purpose of the test was not to simulate the conditions of 

the accident, but rather, to demonstrate the scientific or physical principles 

concerning the function of different parts of tires with respect to air retention.” 

(Doc. # 222 at 7–8.) The court agrees with Plaintiffs. The tests, which featured 

Case 3:11-cv-00295-WKW-CSC Document 260 Filed 11/27/13 Page 2 of 6
3

drilling holes in the wheel rim, are not substantially similar to replicate the failures 

alleged in this case and will tend to confuse the jury. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 

motion to exclude evidence or testimony relating to any static or dynamic inflation 

retention tests is granted.

D. Evidence that Plaintiffs Exceeded the Gross Vehicle Weight

Plaintiffs argue that any reference or evidence that Plaintiffs exceeded the 

motorcycle’s gross vehicle weight is irrelevant to their allegations that the tire 

failed due to manufacturing defects. Defendant argues that this information is 

relevant to show that Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable care at the time of the 

accident and will allow the jury to infer other potentially relevant characteristics 

surrounding or causes of the accident.

This case is about allegations surrounding a tire failure, not a motorcycle 

failure. Plaintiffs were overweight on the motorcycle weight limit but not on the 

tire weight limit. Thus, the court will exclude argument relating to overweight

operation of the motorcycle, provided, however, that weight restrictions and weight 

capacities on the tires and the motorcycle are relevant to the factual background of 

the accident and may be put into evidence. Defendant is precluded, however, from 

arguing causation or contributory negligence arising out of these facts.

Case 3:11-cv-00295-WKW-CSC Document 260 Filed 11/27/13 Page 3 of 6
4

E. Evidence of Henderson’s Prior Arrest 

Plaintiff Henderson argues that any evidence relating to his prior arrest for 

possession of marijuana over twenty years ago should be excluded because it is 

irrelevant. Defendant concedes that this arrest is not admissible evidence and thus, 

the motion is granted.

F. Evidence of Henderson’s Prior Motorcycle Accidents

Plaintiff Henderson argues that any evidence related to Mr. Henderson’s 

prior motorcycle wrecks is not relevant to this case and will unfairly prejudice the 

jury. Defendant argues that such evidence is relevant “to show Mr. Henderson’s 

pre-existing injuries, which are relevant to causation and damages elements of his 

claims in this litigation.” (Doc. # 222 at 18.)

Plaintiff Henderson’s motion is granted, except to rebut testimony by 

Plaintiff that he was a safe motorcycle operator generally, or that he has had no 

other motorcycle accidents.

II. Plaintiff Pamela Stafford’s Motion in Limine (Doc. # 214)

A. Prior Lawsuits filed by Stafford

Ms. Stafford argues that any evidence relating to any prior lawsuits she has 

filed should be excluded because that information is not relevant and would 

unfairly prejudice the jury. Defendant concedes that such information is not 

relevant to the case and thus, the motion is granted.

Case 3:11-cv-00295-WKW-CSC Document 260 Filed 11/27/13 Page 4 of 6
5

B. Evidence relating to Stafford’s Marijuana Use and ER Records

Ms. Stafford argues that any evidence and/or testimony relating to her use of 

marijuana or to the fact that she had marijuana in her urine at the time of the 

accident as well as the hospital records and/or drug screen reflecting the same is 

not admissible and would unfairly prejudice the jury. Defendant argues this 

information is relevant to rebut testimony pertaining to lifestyle and quality of life 

before the accident, among other things.

The court will reserve ruling on this issue until proof is actually offered, in 

order to determine relevance and balance the consideration of undue prejudice. 

Defendant is precluded from mentioning the matter during opening statements.

C. Evidence of Stafford’s Prior Convictions

Plaintiff Stafford argues that any reference or evidence to any prior arrests or 

convictions of Stafford is not relevant to the case and would unfairly prejudice the 

jury. Defendant argues that it is not aware of any prior convictions of Ms. Stafford 

and that Ms. Stafford testified at deposition that she did not have any. If there is a 

conviction, then it will be admissible to impeach Stafford’s credibility based on her 

previous deposition testimony.

The court will reserve ruling on this issue until proof is actually offered, in 

order to determine relevance and balance the consideration of undue prejudice. 

Defendant is precluded from mentioning the matter during opening statements.

Case 3:11-cv-00295-WKW-CSC Document 260 Filed 11/27/13 Page 5 of 6
6

DONE this 27th day of November, 2013.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00295-WKW-CSC Document 260 Filed 11/27/13 Page 6 of 6