Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180306_0000539.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:04:35+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Davenport v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, Ltd.
Davenport v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, Ltd.
Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, Ltd. and the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Defendants.
This matter is before the court pursuant to Defendants' Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, Ltd. and The Goodyear Tire and Company's (collectively “Defendants”) Motion in Limine (ECF No. 102). Plaintiffs Maria Davenport, Arnold Davenport, Demorio Davenport, and Devon Davenport (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a response in opposition to Defendants' Motion (ECF No. 121). For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion in Limine (ECF No. 102).
In the present Motion, Defendants request that the court prevent Plaintiffs from offering any evidence or argument about or including: (1) post-manufacture design changes, (2) incidents that are not substantially similar, (3) subsequent remedial measures or changes, and (4) Defendants' duty to warn. (ECF No. 102.) Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 121), and Defendants filed an omnibus reply (ECF No. 133).
“The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow a court to rule on evidentiary issues in advance of trial in order to avoid delay, ensure an even-handed and expeditious trial, and focus the issues the jury will consider.” United States v. Dylann Storm Roof, No. 2:15-472-RMG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185415, at *2 (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 2016) (internal citations omitted). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency” to make a fact of consequence to the issues in question “more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time or needless cumulative evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 403. Evidence should be construed in the “light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.” United States v. Salazar, 338 F.Appx. 338, 343-44 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Simpson, 910 F.2d 154, 157 (4th Cir. 1990)). Prejudicial evidence is excluded to protect the jury from drawing improper inferences. Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire Co., 853 F.2d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1988) (“All relevant evidence is ‘prejudicial' in the sense that it may prejudice the party against whom it is admitted. Rule 403, however, is concerned only with ‘unfair' prejudice. That is, the possibility that the evidence will excite the jury to make a decision on the basis of a factor unrelated to the issues properly before it.”).
The court has already addressed Mr. Carlson's warning opinion and found that he can testify on these matters. (See ECF No. 137). However, Mr. Carlson is limited to testifying on what information was known at the time the product was placed in the stream of commerce. Therefore, Defendants' Motion is DENIED as moot.
A motion in limine should be granted only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. E.g., Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Verges, No. 1:13-cr-222 (JCC) 2014 WL 559573, at *3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 2014). Defendants' Motion was not sufficiently specific regarding the evidence that should be excluded to allow the court to make a determination on this issue. The court will not prematurely deprive Plaintiffs of their ability to present evidence in this case. Hawthorne Partners v. ATT&T Techs., Inc., 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (“[E]videntiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.”). Accordingly, Defendants' second Motion in Limine is DENIED.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.