United States District Court, D. Minnesota
A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Progressive Preferred
Insurance Co.'s Motions in Limine. Trial in this matter
is set to begin on Tuesday, June 5, 2018.
moves the Court for an order excluding the opinions and
testimony of Edward Foster, arguing that they are based on an
unsupported assumption that Plaintiff will not be able to
work until his desired retirement age due to the injuries he
sustained in this collision. Plaintiff retained Mr. Foster to
calculate a monthly pension amount in support of his claims
for future medical care expenses and loss of future earning
capacity. Defendant does not challenge Mr. Foster's
calculations or his methodology, instead arguing that no
medical professional has opined that Plaintiff will be unable
to work until his full retirement age. Resolution of this
issue will therefore depend on the evidence presented at
trial, and Defendant may object at that time. This Motion
will be denied without prejudice.
Mary Kay Kolar
argues that the Court should preclude testimony from Mary Kay
Kolar. In calculating future medical costs, Ms. Kolar opined
that Plaintiff required a neurologist appointment every five
years, nine chiropractic and eighteen physical therapy
appointments annually, a gym membership and a personal
trainer, and a high-quality mattress every eight years.
Defendant points out that Ms. Kolar is not a neurologist,
chiropractor, or physical therapist and argues that these
opinions lack foundation because Plaintiff's medical care
providers did not identify the specific frequency of these
appointments. But Plaintiff's medical care providers
endorsed Ms. Kolar's assessment of his future medical
needs. These issues are more appropriately raised on cross-
and redirect examination. This Motion will be denied without
Liability for Motor Vehicle Accident
has stipulated that former Defendants Andrii Pylypenko and
Schwarz Trucking, Inc., are solely at fault for the
collision, and thus argues that the Court should limit the
scope of Plaintiff's case on the issue of liability.
Defendant's stipulation does not render evidence of
liability irrelevant. See Grandoe Corp. v. Gander
Mountain Co., 761 F.3d 876, 889 (8th Cir. 2014). But
this trial is now solely about the extent of Plaintiff's
damages. Because liability is no longer at issue, the Court
will limit Plaintiff to providing a brief description of the
evidence on liability in order to give the jury context on
the issue of damages. The Court will grant this Motion.
asks the Court to exclude traffic citations issued to
Pylypenko on June 14, 2013, and on July 30, 2013;
Pylypenko's driver's license record; and Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”)
records on Schwarz Trucking. Plaintiff agrees that
Pylypenko's June 14, 2013, traffic citations and driving
record are not relevant, and therefore this request will be
denied as moot.
30, 2013, a police officer cited Pylypenko for speeding and
apparently took his driver's license. Plaintiff argues
that this citation is relevant because it shows that
Pylypenko drove without a commercial drivers' license at
the time of the collision, which “speaks to his
irresponsibility as a commercial truck driver.” (Docket
No. 94 at 24.) Plaintiff also seeks to admit evidence that
the FMCSA withdrew Schwarz Trucking's certificate of
authority to operate as an interstate commercial carrier.
According to Plaintiff, this evidence explains why Schwarz
Trucking has not participated in this lawsuit. This evidence
is not relevant, and therefore, this Motion will be granted.
Photographs of Damage to Plaintiff's Vehicle
seeks to reduce the number of photographs showing the extent
of the damage to Plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff responds,
arguing that he only intends to admit five photographs from
three proposed exhibits. The Court will deny this Motion
without prejudice subject to specific objections at trial.