Opinion ID: 3180361
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a district court’s exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion, but we do so only if the appellant has preserved the issue through an adequate and timely offer of proof. Perkins v. Silver Mountain Sports Club & Spa, LLC, 557 F.3d 1141, 1146 (10th Cir. 2009); see Fed. R. Evid. 103(a) (“A party may claim error in a ruling to . . . exclude - 10 - evidence only if . . . a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.”). If the district court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence, we then determine whether the exclusion was harmless, and we reverse only “if the error affects a substantial right of the party.” Fed. R. Evid. 103; see also McInnis v. Fairfield Cmtys, Inc., 458 F.3d 1129, 1142 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e will not set aside a jury verdict unless the [evidentiary] error prejudicially affects a substantial right of a party.” (quotations omitted)). “An error affecting a substantial right of a party is an error which had a substantial influence or which leaves one in grave doubt as to whether it had such an effect on the outcome.” McInnis, 458 F.3d at 1142 (quotations omitted). When determining whether an error was harmless, “we review the record as a whole.” Id. (quotations omitted). 2. Hunt’s Rule 59 Motion and the District Court’s Ruling Following the jury verdict, Hunt filed its Rule 59 motion, contending the court should have admitted Mr. Ford’s deposition under Federal Rule of Evidence 804, asserting Mr. Ford was “absent from trial” and Hunt’s counsel was unable “by process or other reasonable means, to procure . . . [his] attendance.” Fed. R. Evid. 804(a)(5)(A). It also argued the court should have admitted Mr. Ford’s deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4)(E), which states, “A party may use for any purpose the deposition of a witness . . . if the court finds . . . that exceptional circumstances make it desirable—in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of live - 11 - testimony in open court—to permit the deposition to be used.” Finally, it argued the court’s failure to admit Mr. Ford’s deposition was prejudicial. The district court denied Hunt’s motion. It ruled “exceptional circumstances” under Rule 32 did not exist and that the court had properly excluded the deposition based on Hunt’s failure to include it in deposition designations due two weeks before trial.4 Finally, it reasoned a new trial was unwarranted in any event because the exclusion of Mr. Ford’s deposition did not prejudice Hunt; the deposition “contained hearsay as to the conduct of [Jimmy] Hill, which hearsay would have been excluded, and was cumulative of points otherwise explored in other testimony and cross-examination.” App. at 512. 3. Analysis Although the record indicates Hunt may not have made an adequate or timely offer of proof to preserve its objection to the exclusion of Mr. Ford’s deposition, we resolve this issue on the ground that exclusion did not affect Hunt’s substantial rights. The admissible evidence from Mr. Ford’s deposition was cumulative of the testimony presented by Mr. Gentry and Mr. Mize—the only eye witnesses to the accident who testified at trial.5 To determine whether the exclusion of Mr. Ford’s deposition prejudiced Hunt, we review the testimony of Mr. Gentry, Mr. Mize, and Mr. Ford. 4 The court did not address Hunt’s Fed. R. Evid. 804 argument. 5 The only other trial witness who had been present in the chicken house was Theresa Milligan Hill, a relative of Jimmy. She testified that, although she was present during the accident, she did not see Mr. Ford hit Jimmy. She therefore offered no testimony regarding the events leading into the accident. - 12 -
Mr. Gentry testified that, on the day of the accident, Mr. Ford arrived at his farm with a delivery of chickens from O.K. Farms. Five of Mr. Gentry’s friends and relatives were present to assist with the delivery, including Jimmy, Mr. Gentry’s wife’s uncle. All of them had experience unloading chickens. He further testified as follows: Q. Now, you were in the front telling him where to stop though, right? A. Yes, sir. .... Q. Where were you when Uncle Jimmy Hill was hurt or injured? Where were you standing? A. I was standing in front of the Moffett to the driver’s left, my right. App. at 853, 859. The court then admitted the following demonstrative exhibit. - 13 - Id. at 1305. Mr. Gentry testified that he, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Mize were standing in positions reflected in the exhibit. His testimony continued: Q: Is there any question in your mind that he was pulling forward and not backing out when Uncle Jimmy was hurt? A. Yes, sir. .... Q. All right. Did you ask the driver Troy Ford — he came to a stop; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you ask him to pull forward a little further, a little bit more? A. Yes, I did. Q. Approximately how short was he? How much more did he need to pull in? A. I just wanted him to pull forward maybe three or four feet. Q. All right. Did he stop on his own without you telling him to stop when he originally stopped and then you told him he has got to come forward more? A. He stopped on his own. .... Q. And then you said to come forward some more, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. Where Troy Ford was sitting, was he able to see to his front and to the right, front right, from where he was sitting? A. No, sir. Q. It was blind, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. He was driving blind in pulling forward to his front right; correct? A. Yes, sir. .... Q. Tell us what happens as Troy Ford pulls forward. A. I heard someone yell back up, back up, and I believe it was that Aaron, Aaron Mize. Q. Yes, sir. .... Q All right. When you heard back up, back up, was Troy Ford still pulling forward? A. Yes, sir. Q. He stopped pretty quick though, didn’t he? A. He stopped very quick, yes, sir. - 14 - ..... Q. Did Aaron Mize do his job as a spotter and get that Moffett stopped before it ran into Uncle Jimmy? A. No, sir. .... Q. Could Troy Ford from where he was sitting, could he see Jimmy Hill before he ran into him? A. I don’t believe so, no, sir. Id. at 862-66. On cross-examination, O.K. Farms’ counsel inquired further about Mr. Ford’s initial stop: Q: . . . . Would it be fair to say, sir, that when the forklift pulls in and stops, that’s generally the signal for all of the helpers or you, if you are in someone else’s house, to move back in and start getting the chickens off to do the dumping? A: Yes, sir. Q: So it would certainly be reasonable to assume perhaps that [Jimmy] once this forklift stopped might have thought it is time to start throwing chickens and step forward to do that from wherever he was? A: Yes, sir. Id. at 920.
Mr. Mize testified he began working for O.K. Farms in June 2012. His job was “to open and close doors . . . to keep the temperature inside those trailers at a range where the chickens would still be healthy.” Id. at 1061. Mr. Mize stated that, before the accident, he went into the chicken house. He further testified as follows: Q. What made you go in there? A. Because he said it was tight, so I offered—I said I will watch him. .... And make sure he didn’t hit the [water]line. .... Q. Could Troy see in front of him? . . . . - 15 - A. You have a blind spot right here. Q. To the right basically. A. Yes. Q. Front right, you can’t see, right? A. No. Q. He knew that, right? A. Yes. Q. You knew that, right? A. Yes. .... Q. This injury happened as Troy Ford is pulling forward; correct? A. Correct. Q. And you see this man who got run over at the last second; right? A. Correct. Q. And what was he doing? A. It looked like he was moving like to get over the line. Q. All right. Where were you located? A. Behind the Moffett on the right. Q. All right. You are behind the Moffett on the right; correct? A. Correct. Q. You are looking ahead; right? A. Correct. Q. You could see ahead of you; correct? A. Correct. Q. And you could look and see anything you wanted to in front of you, there is nothing obstructing your view; correct? .... A. True. .... Q. And the man who got run over, what did he look like he was doing? A. It looked like he was trying to step over the waterline. Q. And that’s when the Moffett hit him; correct? A. Yes, and that’s when I said whoa. Q. Okay. And Troy Ford stopped when you said whoa, didn’t he? A. Yes, but it was too late. .... A. . . . I was looking all around because I wasn’t—I wasn’t a full-blown spotter.[6] 6 Mr. Mize later explained that by “full-blown spotter” he meant “somebody that is actually trained to be a spotter.” Id. at 1000. When asked, “were you trained on any safety rules by O.K. farms?” he answered, “No.” Id. at 988. - 16 - ..... Q. . . . . So were you looking to the right? A. Yes. Q. Looking to the left? A. Yes. Q. Looking straight ahead? A. Yes. Q. Looking up? A. Yes. Q. Looking down? A. Yes. Q. So you really weren’t just looking at the waterlines, were you? .... A. I mean, I wasn’t—like I said, I wasn’t dead set on watching, watching, watching, watching, watching. . . . . .... Q. Isn’t it true that you have said in the past that Jimmy Hill came out in the front of it and that you couldn’t see him at first? A. Correct. .... Q. . . . .Where did he come from? Do you know? A. The front of the [Moffett]. Q. How do you know that if you couldn’t see him? A. Because of the way he was coming when I seen him. Q. Do you know if he was on the left side of the [Moffett] and walked in front of it? A. Yes. .... Q. So he must have come from the left, across the front and then stepped out. Does that sound fair? A. Yes. .... Q. Do you recall that there was an investigator . . . from J.B. Hunt that came to the scene pretty quickly after the injury? A. Yes. .... Q. Did you tell him that Jimmy Hill was standing on your side? A. Yeah. .... Q. Well, if he was standing on your side, he didn’t come out from in front of the Moffett, did he? A. I guess not. - 17 - Id. at 983-85, 989-90, 992-97, 1046, 1051.
Mr. Ford provided the following testimony regarding the training he received from Hunt: Q. So when you decide I want to go to work for J.B. Hunt, then tell me the steps you had to do to make that happen. A. [I did] orientation down there in Dallas. We spent four days down there training and going through all kinds of stuff. .... Q. So you had road tests? A. Yeah, yeah. Q. Did you take classes or have to listen to speakers about safety issues? A. We had to do all that and then we had to do the road test out on the road. Yeah, there’s a lot to it. .... Q. After you finished your four days down there in Dallas, then they say you’re hired? A. Well, I came back up here and had to go through the Moffett and all that stuff. . . . .... Q. Did you do the Moffett training at Heavener[, Oklahoma]? .... A. Yes. . . . ... Q. All right. So you get back to Heavener and you’re going to have the Moffett training. Do you have to have that before they can put you out in the field? A. Oh, yeah. I went through two weeks of training on the truck and the Moffett with another driver before I done anything. .... Q. When you were training on the Moffett, did you watch videos? A. Yes. I have, yes. .... Q. Do you remember the name of the video[s]? A. No, I don’t remember the name of [them]. .... Q. When you would watch these videos, would you have to take a test? A. Yes. Q. Did you pass your tests? - 18 - A. Yes. Q. At any point in time in any of your two-week training at Heavener, did you fail any tests? A. No. Q. And would you actually get on a [Moffett] and have to drive and demonstrate for your supervisor? A. Yeah, well, I did for that other driver and the supervisor there on the parking lot. Q. So they teamed you up with another driver and you rode with him? .... A. Yes. .... Q. So you would ride with him and go deliver to the chicken houses? A. Yes. App. at 1376-85. Mr. Ford testified that, on the day of the accident, he was accompanied by Mr. Mize, who was “summer help” hired by O.K. Farms, when he delivered the chickens to Mr. Gentry. Id. at 1397. He further testified: Q. . . . . once you’re loaded up, as a driver can you see where to go? A. You can’t see that right-hand side, no. Q. When you say right-hand side, that’s from where you’re seated on the Moffett? A. The seat sits on the left, you know, on them Moffetts. You can see down this side, part of your front, but you cannot see that other side. Q. So when you’re seated, looking forward, you have a blind spot to your right? A. You have a blind spot. .... Q. . . . When you’re headed up to the door of the barn to go into the house, when you kind of look at an angle to see what’s in front of you that’s going to be in your blind spot; is that right? A. Yeah. Q. Now, do you have a spotter? A. Well, that’s what Aaron was doing. . . . . .... Q. Do these guys, the summer help, are they trained as to what to do as a spotter? A. No. - 19 - .... Q. So when you’re in this barn bringing in this load, tell me what happens in the incident with Mr. Hill. A. . . . . I got up there close and started—I was slowing down real slow. That’s the way you go. You just crawl in anyhow. But I was going to stop short. The owner over here, Gentry, was telling me to come on up, come on up. Aaron was over on this side watching, you know, supposed to be. But he had me ease on up, and we got—I guess he stepped over the waterline. I don’t know. I can’t see that side. I don’t know what happened. Q. But you know at some point in time after the fact that you ran over Mr. Hill’s leg? A. Well, he stepped over in front of the tire or something while—yeah. . . . it hit his leg. Q. Now, you’re telling me the owner—that’s Mr. Gentry? A. Yes. Q. He was giving you hand motions? A. Yes. Q. He would have had to have been on your left side if you could see him? A. He was on my left side. Q. So he couldn’t have been able to see what was going on on the right side then? . . . . A. I mean, he could see more than I could, I thought. You know, I thought he probably could see. Q. . . . Well, where in relation to you on the seat, how far was Mr. Gentry from you? A. 8, 10 foot, I guess. Q. Right next to you, in front of you, behind you? A. No, he was in front of me. Q. Would he have been in front of— A. He was on the other end of the skid.[7] Q. Was he all the way clear of the skid? A. Yes. Q. And Aaron was on your right side? A. Uh-huh. Q. Was he parallel like right next to you or behind you or do you know? A. He was right at the end of the Moffett over there— Q. To the right-hand— .... 7 Earlier in his deposition, Mr. Ford had described a skid as a structure holding the stacks of chickens that the Moffett picks up. - 20 - A. At the end of the hood of the Moffett.[8] He could see—he ought to have been able to see anything over there, but I couldn’t. Q. There was nothing obstructing Aaron’s view is what you’re saying? A. No, shouldn’t have been. Q. And his only job at that point in time in the barn was to be your spotter? A. Yes, I mean. Q. Was there any other reason he would be in the barn except to spot for you? A. No, not really. .... Q. So when you’re going forward, you’re going forward all the way almost to the curtain, that’s when this happened, before you even started unloading that skid? A. Yeah, when he motioned me to come on forward. Q. And that was Roger Gentry motioning you? A. Uh-huh. The owner, whatever his name is. Q. And at some point in time did Aaron Mize say or do anything? A. Yeah, he hollered—when he hollered stop, we had already caught that ole boy’s leg. .... Q. When he hollered stop, did you know what you had hit? A. No. Q. Did you know you had hit anything? A. No, I didn’t know what I did. Q. But you knew you hit— A. He told me. Q. My question is when he hollered stop, did you feel something, that you had run over something? A. No. .... Q. . . . . As soon as you get off the Moffett, what do you see? A. Him laying over the waterline. .... Looked like he had tripped over the waterline is what he looks like, you know. Id. at 1400-05, 1410-11, 1416. 8 Mr. Ford had previously testified that the skids are located in the front of the Moffett. This testimony suggests the hood is located in the back of the Moffett, which is similarly depicted in the diagram admitted during Mr. Gentry’s testimony. - 21 - When asked further about Mr. Mize’s role in the incident, Mr. Ford stated, “Maybe he glanced off or something when he wasn’t supposed to. But anyhow, I can’t see that side. He was supposed to have been watching. I don’t know.” Id. at 1418-19.9
Mr. Ford’s deposition testimony was cumulative of Mr. Gentry’s and Mr. Mize’s trial testimony. All three testified to the same basic facts: Mr. Ford drove the Moffett into the chicken house toward his blind spot; Mr. Gentry guided Mr. Ford from the front left of the Moffett; Mr. Mize spotted him from its back right; and Mr. Ford hit Jimmy. The inferences of fault from Mr. Ford’s testimony are also cumulative of the inferences from Mr. Gentry’s and Mr. Mize’s testimony. First, all three men’s testimony could suggest Jimmy was at fault because they all said he stepped into the Moffett’s path as it was moving toward him. Second, their testimony could suggest Mr. Ford was at fault because he drove directly into his blind spot. Third, their testimony could suggest Mr. Gentry was at fault because he directed Mr. Ford to move forward and then failed to warn him before he hit Jimmy. Fourth, their testimony could suggest Mr. Mize was at fault because he inadequately monitored Mr. Ford and failed to warn him of Jimmy’s movements in time. Mr. Ford additionally suggested Mr. Mize may have “glanced off” 9 In its Rule 59 order, the district court concluded Mr. Ford’s deposition “contained hearsay as to the conduct of [Jimmy] Hill, which hearsay would have been excluded.” Id. at 512. We agree. Mr. Ford testified, for example, that after the accident, Jody Herbert, one of the individuals helping Mr. Gentry with the delivery, told Mr. Ford that Jimmy “was where he didn’t need to be at the time” of impact. Id. at 1413. We agree with the district court that such statements are inadmissible and should be disregarded for the purposes of our harmless error analysis. - 22 - at the moment of the accident. Id. at 1418.10 But Mr. Mize also testified he was “looking all around.” Id. at 992. Finally, Mr. Ford suggested O.K. Farms was at fault for failing to train Mr. Mize to spot Mr. Ford. Mr. Mize also testified O.K. Farms had not trained him how to spot. In short, the facts and inferences available from Mr. Ford’s testimony were cumulative of those from Mr. Gentry’s and Mr. Mize’s trial testimony.11 The exclusion of Mr. Ford’s testimony therefore does not undermine our confidence in the outcome of trial, and we find no prejudice to Hunt’s substantial rights.
Hunt’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive. Hunt contends the absence of Mr. Ford’s testimony made it appear “like Hunt had something to hide, or, in the alternative, that Hunt just did not care,” particularly because counsel suggested during opening statements that Mr. Ford might appear, and at least one witness referenced Mr. Ford’s 10 We question the admissibility of this testimony because the record suggests he was speculating and lacked personal knowledge. See Fed. R. Evid. 602 (“A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.”). 11 The converse is not true. Mr. Mize and Mr. Gentry did testify to facts not included in Mr. Ford’s deposition testimony. For example, Mr. Gentry’s testified regarding the signaling effect of Mr. Ford’s initial stop, and Mr. Mize offered inconsistent testimony regarding Jimmy’s exact position at the moment of impact. This testimony is immaterial for the purposes of our cumulative evidence analysis because it extends beyond the scope of Mr. Ford’s testimony and is therefore irrelevant to whether Mr. Ford’s testimony was cumulative of testimony offered at trial. - 23 - deposition. Aplt. Br. at 41.12 Hunt relatedly argues “the jury was angered by not hearing from Hunt’s participant in the ‘affray,’ and took any frustration or anger out on Hunt.” Id. To show the exclusion of Mr. Ford’s deposition affected its substantial rights, Hunt must do more than make speculative and unsubstantiated assertions of juror anger. It must show how Mr. Ford’s deposition testimony might have affected the outcome in light of other evidence in “the record as a whole.” McInnis, 458 F.3d at 1142. It fails to do so. For this same reason, Hunt’s conclusory assertion that Mr. Ford’s “appearance would be a human face on the allegations of liability against Hunt, a corporate entity” is unavailing, Aplt. Br. at 33, an argument that makes even less sense as applied to use of the deposition. Hunt also contends it was prejudiced because Mr. Ford was the “only witness with ‘on-site’ knowledge of the specific conditions, actions and movements of those present, and decisions made at the time of the accident.” Id. at 32. But Mr. Gentry and Mr. Mize testified to specific conditions, actions, movements, and decisions made at the time of the 12 In Mr. Hill’s opening statement, counsel stated, “We hope Troy Ford is going to be here. We were told that he maybe didn’t want to come, but hopefully he will come and tell us what happened.” App. at 591. In Hunt’s opening statement, counsel stated, “Troy Ford will tell you” certain facts. Id. at 595. Finally, Mr. Hill’s expert witness Jason Jupe, a forensic engineer, indicated he reviewed various eyewitnesses’ depositions—including Mr. Ford’s—to reconstruct the accident. Hunt additionally asserts, “Ford’s deposition testimony was used as the basis for testimony from other witnesses, including . . . Gentry.” Aplt. Br. at 41. But Mr. Gentry’s testimony does not contain references to Mr. Ford’s deposition testimony. - 24 - accident based on personal knowledge. Hunt’s assertion is further belied by Mr. Ford’s series of answers, stating “I don’t know.”13 Finally, Hunt argues Mr. Ford’s deposition would have addressed “how the morethan-sufficient training Hunt provided him figured into his conduct.” Id. at 32-33. Mr. Ford testified he received four days of training in Dallas, including a road test, and weeks of additional Moffett training in Oklahoma, including videos. He said that he passed every test during training and drove a Moffett in front of his supervisor. Hunt does not explain, nor can we discern, how this testimony could have influenced the outcome in light of the other evidence admitted at trial. Hunt fails to explain how Mr. Ford’s testimony about his training “figured into his conduct,” id., or affected the outcome of trial. Based on the foregoing, we conclude the record does not show the exclusion of Mr. Ford’s deposition testimony prejudiced Hunt. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Hunt’s Rule 59 motion on this issue because the court did not abuse its discretion.