Colson Hicks Eidson

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse, Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5008 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Fax: (305) 476-7444

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case Number: 1:20-cv-23463-XXXX

Magistrate Judge: Jonathan Goodman

MARIA PEREZ-SERA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a Panamian )

Corporation, the owner and operator of the )

Trademark CARNIVAL CRUISE LINE, )

)

Defendant. )

 /

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff Maria Perez-Sera pursuant to this Court’s amended scheduling order [ECF No. 

21], files the following Motions in Limine to exclude certain evidence pursuant to Rule 401, Rule 

403, and Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case is a maritime action for significant personal injuries Plaintiff Maria Perez-Sera 

suffered while a passenger on the Carnival Horizon when she was struck from behind by a 

passenger operating a motorized scooter. Neither Ms. Perez-Sera nor her companions saw the 

scooter before it struck her. The scooter operator, Eileen Smith, has since passed away. There are 

no living eyewitnesses to the event. The event was captured on video surveillance, viewed shortly 

thereafter by Defendant Carnival’s security personnel, and saved into the investigation file by that 

security personnel, but has not been produced to date and Defendant maintains it no longer exists.

Case 1:20-cv-23463-MGC Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2021 Page 1 of 7
Colson Hicks Eidson

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse, Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5008 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Fax: (305) 476-7444

2

Plaintiff’s Claims and Carnival’s Affirmative Defense

Plaintiff has asserted five causes of action based on her severe injuries. Count 1 is a claim 

for negligent failure to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its passengers. Count 2 is based 

on failure to warn. Count 3 is based on negligent training and supervision of personnel. Count 4 

is based on negligent medical care and treatment by employees or actual agents. Count 5 is one 

for negligence for vicarious liability based upon apparent agency. Carnival has asserted numerous 

affirmative defenses.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 401 provides that, to be relevant, evidence must have a tendency to make a “fact [that] 

is of consequence in determining the action” more or less probable than it would be without the 

evidence.

Rule 402 provides that “[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible.”

Rule 403 provides that “the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is 

substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice [or] confusing the issues.” 

A Rule 403 determination is committed to the district court’s discretion. See, e.g., United States v.

Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1345 (11th Cir. 2018).

Rule 404(a)(1) provides that “[e]vidence of a person’s character or character trait is not 

admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character 

or trait.” And, Rule 404(b)(1) provides that “[e]vidence of any other . . . wrong, or act is not 

admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person 

acted in accordance with the character.” A two-part test governs the admissibility of Rule

404(b) evidence. See Lanham v. Whitfield, 805 F.2d 970, 972 (11th Cir. 1986). It first must be 

determined whether evidence of other acts “is relevant to an issue other than the [party’s]

Case 1:20-cv-23463-MGC Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2021 Page 2 of 7
Colson Hicks Eidson

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse, Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5008 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Fax: (305) 476-7444

3

character.” Id.. If so, “the evidence must possess probative value that is not substantially 

outweighed by its undue prejudice and must meet the other requirements of [Rule 403].” Id.

“District courts have ‘unquestionable’ authority to control their own dockets.” Smith v.

Psychiatric Sol., Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014)(internal citations omitted. 

“[A]dherence to deadlines is an essential part of lawyering.” United States v. Marder, 318 F.R.D.

186, 189 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2016). “Courts routinely strike expert reports or exclude expert

testimony which is not timely disclosed, even if the consequence is to preclude a party’s entire

claim or defense.” Warren v. Delvista Towers Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2014 WL 3764126, at *1 (S.D.

Fla. July 30, 2014).

MOTION IN LIMINE #1

To Prevent Reference or Suggestion that Damages Awards May Drive up the Price of 

Products or Services

Any reference to or suggestion that a damages award for Plaintiff may drive up the price 

of products of services, including cruise line tickets, put corporations out of business or cost jobs 

to be lost, is irrelevant and its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, 

confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and by considerations of undue delay, and waste of 

time. See Rule 402 and Rule 403.

MOTION IN LIMINE #2

To Prevent Evidence or Argument Regarding what Plaintiff might do with any award of 

Damages Plaintiff Might Receive

Any evidence regarding or suggesting what Plaintiff might do with any award of damages 

she might receive is irrelevant, and its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair 

prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and by considerations of undue delay, and 

waste of time. See Rule 401 and Rule 403.

Case 1:20-cv-23463-MGC Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2021 Page 3 of 7
Colson Hicks Eidson

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse, Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5008 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Fax: (305) 476-7444

4

MOTION IN LIMINE #3

To Prevent Evidence or Argument Regarding the Time or Circumstance under which the 

Plaintiff Employed Any Attorneys

Any evidence regarding the time or circumstance under which Plaintiff employed any 

attorneys is irrelevant, and its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, 

confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and by considerations of undue delay, and waste of 

time, particularly considering that the passenger ticket requires notice within 180 days and the 

filing of a lawsuit within 365 days. See Rule 402 and Rule 403; see also Watson v. Builders 

Square, Inc., 563 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (evidence that Plaintiff saw a lawyer three days 

after the accident was inadmissible).

MOTION IN LIMINE #4

To Prevent Improper Closing Argument

Counsel should not attempt to evoke images of “runaway verdicts,” assert that a claim or 

defense is “frivolous,” characterize plaintiff’s case as “cashing in on a lottery ticket” or argue that 

the judicial system is “out of control.” Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So.2d 

1010 (Fla. 2000).

MOTION IN LIMINE #5

To Take Additional, Limited Discovery Regarding the Missing Video Surveillance

Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference her previously filed motions requesting 

permission to take additional, limited discovery after the November 3, 2021 discovery cut-off to 

establish whether Defendant Carnival acted in bad faith in handling crucial evidence. [ECF 34, 35]. 

Plaintiff requested that Defendant preserve any video surveillance of the incident, and that 

Defendant produce any video surveillance of the actual collision. On February 3, 2021, Defendant 

formally advised Plaintiff “None as to surveillance videos.” 

Case 1:20-cv-23463-MGC Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2021 Page 4 of 7
Colson Hicks Eidson

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse, Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5008 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Fax: (305) 476-7444

5

To Plaintiff’s surprise, on October 26, 2021, Defendant’s Security Officer, Arvind Lagas, 

testified he had viewed the collision captured on video surveillance the day after the incident, used 

the video to identify the scooter operator (whom he then spoke to), and that he had personally 

preserved the video of the actual collision as a video attachment to the investigation report created 

in this matter. Defendant had asserted a work-product privilege over the incident report as being 

created in anticipation of litigation, but did not list the video attachment in the privilege log it filed. 

After several conversations between undersigned and Defense counsel regarding the video clip 

Mr. Lagas had testified about, Carnival advised it had lost the video due to a computer glitch 

aboard the Carnival Horizon. On Monday, November 1, 2021, Mr. Lagas’s direct supervisor 

onboard the Horizon, Officer Pai, testified that in the five years he had been Chief Security Officer 

aboard numerous Carnival vessels, including the Horizon, it had been Carnival’s standard 

operating practice to save videos that were part of investigative files onto external hard drives that 

were maintained in the office of the Chief Security Officer. 

Plaintiff moved to compel the videotaped surveillance before the Honorable Magistrate 

Judge John Goodman, which was heard over Zoom on November 1, 2021. Magistrate Judge 

Goodman issued an oral ruling consistent with the written order he issued on November 2, 2021. 

[ECF 33.] Specifically, Magistrate Goodman ordered that Plaintiff may conduct a 30(b)6 Witness 

Deposition to learn the precise nature of how the video was preserved and why, how and when it 

became unavailable, and why Defendant Carnival gave an incomplete explanation that it had “no 

surveillance video,” any of which may provide a basis for Plaintiff to file a motion for sanctions 

for spoliation and request an adverse inference if the testimony meets the evidentiary threshold for 

spoliation of electronically stored information. He advised the parties to work out the specific 

areas of designation, and the deposition date, between themselves.

Case 1:20-cv-23463-MGC Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2021 Page 5 of 7
Colson Hicks Eidson

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse, Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5008 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Fax: (305) 476-7444

6

Because this Court has ordered a discovery deadline of November 3, 2021 [ECF 21], 

however, Magistrate Judge Goodman advised Plaintiff’s counsel she would have to separately seek 

relief from this Court for permission to take additional, limited discovery consistent with the ruling 

above beyond the November 3, 2021 discovery cut-off. Plaintiff did so on November 2, 2021 and 

on November 29, 2021, and although Defendant has not filed any response to either motion, the 

Court has not yet ruled on either motion. As a result, to date, Plaintiff has not been able to 

investigate or establish the bad faith nature of Defendant’s failure to preserve the video 

surveillance that captured the incident that is sued upon.

Plaintiff respectfully renews her requests for permission to depose a 30(b)6 witness on the 

matters addressed above, and for an order compelling Defendant Carnival to produce its 30(b)6 

witness within regular business hours fully prepared to respond to all areas of inquiry. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff requests that Defendant be precluded from raising 

any of the matters in Motions in Limine 1-5.

Respectfully submitted,

COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Tel: (305) 476-7400

 By: Deborah J. Gander____________

Deborah J. Gander

Fla. Bar No. 34363

deborah@colson.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-23463-MGC Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2021 Page 6 of 7
Colson Hicks Eidson

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse, Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5008 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Fax: (305) 476-7444

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of said motion was e-filed with the Clerk 

of Court through the CM/ECF on this 29th day of December 2021 and is to be e-served by the CM/ECF 

system to: Michael J. Drahos, Esq., W. Cooper Jarnagin, Esq., GRAY ROBINSON, P.A., 515 North 

Flagler Drive, Suite 1425, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, T: (561) 268-5727, F: (561) 268-5745, 

michael.drahos@gray-robinson.com; lilia.parker@gray-robinson.coml Cooper.Jarnagin@GrayRobinson.com.

COLSON HICKS EIDSON

Attorneys for Plaintiff

255 Alhambra Circle, PH

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

(305) 476-7400

By Deborah J. Gander 

Deborah J. Gander

Florida Bar No. 34363

Deborah@colson.com

Eservice@colson.com

Lina@colson.com

Case 1:20-cv-23463-MGC Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2021 Page 7 of 7