1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

RICHARD SPINNENWEBER, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CV-101-JEM

)

ROBERT LADUCER and )

RED RIVER SUPPLY INCORPORATED, )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a number of Motions in Limine [DE 168-180, 183, 184], 

each filed as a separate motion by Defendants on November 6, 2019. Plaintiff has not responded 

and the time to do so has passed. The Court notes that several other documents were titled Motions 

in Limine but are more properly understood to be motions to exclude expert testimony, and will 

be considered separately.

I. Analysis

A motion in limine will be granted Aonly when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all 

potential grounds.” Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Techs., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. 

Ill. 1993); see also Dartey v. Ford Motor Co., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ind. 2000). Most 

evidentiary rulings will be resolved at trial in context, and this Aruling is subject to change when 

the case unfolds.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-42 (1984). The Court considers each 

request in turn.

A. Lay Opinions as to Medical Causation [DE 168]

Defendants request that the Court exclude lay witnesses from testifying as to 

medical diagnoses, causes and effects of injuries, and other matters of medical science 
2

excluded as a lay person lacks the requisite training and knowledge to provide this type 

of testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 701. Plaintiff has made no objection to this request, and 

it is therefore granted.

B. Lay Testimony Regarding Injuries or Conditions Unsupported by Expert Testimony 

[DE 169]

Defendants request that the Court exclude testimony of injuries or physical 

conditions for which an admissible expert has not expressed an opinion regarding the 

cause of that injury or condition. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 701. Plaintiff has not 

objected. Accordingly, no lay witness may testify at trial regarding injuries or 

symptoms of injuries that are not connected to the accident by expert testimony.

C. Statements Regarding Punishing Defendants [DE 170]

Defendants move for Plaintiff to be excluded from arguing that a jury verdict would 

or should punish or send a message to Defendants or society at large, since no punitive 

damages are being sought. Since a request for damages to send a message beyond 

making Plaintiff whole is inappropriate in a case for only compensatory damages, the 

request is granted. See Betts v. City of Chicago, 784 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1033 (N.D. Ill. 

2011) (“Given that compensatory damages are limited to actual losses, this court agrees 

that [the plaintiff]’s argument that the jury should ‘send a message’ is a punitive 

damages argument.”).

D. Reference to Liability Insurance [DE 171]

Defendants request that the Court exclude any reference to liability insurance. See 

Fed. R. Evid. 411. The request is granted and any mention of whether Defendants were 
3

insured is precluded.

E. Reference to Prior Settlement Negotiations [DE 172]

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408, any reference to settlement negotiations 

or statements made about the case during those negotiations is excluded.

F. Testimony of Statements Made by Healthcare Professionals [DE 173]

Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from testifying as to what he was told by 

non-testifying healthcare professionals. Hearsay, which is defined as a declarant’s outof-court statement that a “party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter

asserted in the statement,” Fed. R. Evid. 801(a), (c), is not admissible unless allowed 

by statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules created by the United States 

Supreme Court. See Fed. R. Evid. 802. To the extent that the out of court statements of 

non-testifying healthcare professionals are inadmissible hearsay, they are excluded.

G. Reference to Previous Trial and Motions [DE 174]

Reference to the previous trial and to the outcome or filing of any previous motions, 

including this one, are excluded.

H. “Golden Rule” Arguments [DE 175]

Invitations for the jury to place itself in Plaintiff’s shoes are improper and therefore

excluded. See, e.g., Thomas v. Ritz, No. 3:15-CV-108-RJD, 2018 WL 1784473, at *4 

(S.D. Ill. Apr. 13, 2018) (“A ‘golden rule’ argument is ‘one which the jury is asked to 

put itself in the plaintiff's position’” and is “improper.”) (quoting Spray-Rite Serv. 

Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 684 F.2d 1226, 1246 (7th Cir. 1982)).
4

I. Reference to Defendant’s Corporate Status [DE 176]

Reference to Defendant Red River Supply as a trucking company or its status as 

corporation is excluded to the extent that it is likely to be prejudicial.

J. Reference to Parties’ Financial Status [DE 177]

Defendants move for the Court to preclude reference to any of the parties’ financial 

situation, since financial status is irrelevant to the determination of liability or damages. 

Plaintiff does not object, and the request is granted.

K. Reference to Uncalled Witnesses [DE 178]

Comments regarding the failure of Defendants to call any particular witness are 

excluded.

L. Untimely Disclosed Witnesses, Exhibits, or Contentions [DE 179]

Defendants request that the Court preclude any witness, exhibit, or contention not 

previously disclosed to Defendants from testifying or being presented during trial. 

Undisclosed information and witnesses will not be permitted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) 

(“If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) 

or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on 

a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is 

harmless.”).

M. Reference to Prior Allegations, Claims, Lawsuits, or Complaints Against Defendants 

[DE 180]

Reference to unrelated and dissimilar accidents, claims, or lawsuits involving 

Defendants is precluded.
5

N. Testimony of Certain Lay Witnesses [DE 183]

Defendants move to exclude the testimony of eight lay witnesses regarding the 

alleged effects of the accident on Plaintiff because no expert testimony establishes that 

the effects were caused by the accident. To the extent that the testimony relates to 

medical conditions or injuries about which there is no expert testimony to establish 

causation, that testimony is excluded. Only lay testimony addressing personal 

knowledge of the witness is permitted. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 701, 702, 802.

O. Testimony Regarding Statements or Opinions in Medical Records [DE 184]

Defendants move to exclude as inadmissible hearsay any expressions of opinion 

contained in the plaintiff’s medical records that relate to the issue of causation. 

Although statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment are generally exceptions 

to the rule against hearsay, the rule only excepts statements “made for – and . . . 

reasonably pertinent to – medical diagnosis or treatment” or that “describe[] medical 

history.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(4). Accordingly, statements about causation in the medical 

records that are not excepted by Rule 803(4) are excluded.

II. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motions in Limine [DE 168-

180, 183, and 184], as described above.

So ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2019.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record