Cleveland Bros. Equip. Co. v. Vorobey

• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: Matthew W. Brann, Chief United States District Judge
• Citation: Cleveland Bros. Equip. Co. v. Vorobey, 655 F.Supp.3d 305 (M.D. Pa. 2023)
• Docket Number: 4:19-CV-01708,No. 4:19-CV-01708
• Decision Date: 10 February 2023
• Parties: CLEVELAND BROTHERS EQUIPMENT CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. Grigoriy N. VOROBEY, and Grigoriy N. Vorobey, d/b/a GVN Transport, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs, v. Michael A. Miller, Third Party Defendant.

655 F.Supp.3d 305

CLEVELAND BROTHERS EQUIPMENT CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. Grigoriy N. VOROBEY, and Grigoriy N. Vorobey, d/b/a GVN Transport, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs, v. Michael A. Miller, Third Party Defendant.

No. 4:19-CV-01708

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Signed February 10, 2023

John T. Pion, Paul A. Custer, Pion, Nerone, Girman, Winslow & Smith, PC, Pittsburgh, PA, Stephanie L. Hersperger, Pion, Nerone, Girman, Winslow & Smith P.C., Harrisburg, PA, for Plaintiff.

Lauren E. Dobrowalski, Cipriani & Werner, Scranton, PA, for Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff Grigoriy N. Vorobey.

Daniel E. Cummins, Cummins Law, Clarks Summitt, PA, for Third Party Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Matthew W. Brann, Chief United States District Judge

I. BACKGROUND

In 2019, Cleveland Brothers Equipment Co., Inc. ("Cleveland Brothers") filed a complaint seeking contribution from Grigoriy N. Vorobey and Grigoriy N. Vorobey d/b/a GVN Transport (collectively "Vorobey"), for sums that Cleveland Brothers paid to settle underlying civil actions filed against Cleveland Brothers in state court (the "Underlying Actions").¹

The Underlying Actions arose from an accident that occurred in August 2016 in the southbound lanes on Route 15 in Tioga County, Pennsylvania (the "Southbound Accident").² Shortly before that accident, another accident had occurred in the northbound lanes in the same area on Route 15, wherein a pickup truck with a tow-behind trailer had overturned (the "Northbound Accident").³ That truck was allegedly being driven by Third Party Defendant Michael A. Miller.⁴ For an unexplained reason, the Northbound Accident caused Vorobey to stop his truck in the right lane of the two southbound lanes, which in turn caused a 2016 Chevrolet driven by Timothy Miller to stop, followed by a 2008 Ford driven by Andrew Puhlick—with passenger Harold Whipple—and finally a 2008 Honda driven by Michael McCollum, to also stop their vehicles in the right lane.⁵

At that time, Keith Bryson, a driver for Cleveland Brothers who was operating in his capacity as an employee of Cleveland Brothers, was also traveling in the southbound lanes. At around the time that the vehicles were stopped, Bryson was distracted by a squealing sound emanating from his truck's onboard computer system and did not return his attention to the road in time to avoid colliding with the stopped vehicles.⁶ This caused a chain reaction impacting all of the stopped vehicles; McCollum and Whipple were killed in the Southbound Accident, while Puhlick was seriously injured.⁷

As a result of that collision, several of the victims filed suit in state court against Bryson and Cleveland Brothers; Bryson admitted his negligence in contributing to the Southbound Accident.⁸ Cleveland Brother thereafter settled all claims in the Underlying Actions but, in the settlements, Cleveland Brothers reserved its right to pursue claims for contribution against Vorobey.⁹

After Cleveland Brother filed its complaint in this matter, Vorobey moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Cleveland Brothers was required to bring its claim as a counterclaim in an underlying personal injury action filed by Vorobey against Cleveland Brothers.¹⁰ This Court rejected that assertion, and held that Cleveland Brothers' contribution claim was not a compulsory counterclaim in the action brought by Vorobey, and therefore the claim could proceed here.¹¹

Vorobey then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he owed Cleveland Brothers no care of duty and, in any event, any negligence on his part was not a proximate cause of the Southbound Accident.¹² This Court denied the motion for summary judgment, reasoning that Vorobey owed all other drivers a duty of reasonable care, and that a jury could reasonably conclude that Vorobey was a proximate cause of the Southbound Accident.¹³

This matter is set for trial in March 2023 and, in accordance with this Court's Scheduling Order, the parties have filed their motions in limine. Cleveland Brothers has filed eight motions in limine.¹⁴ Vorobey in turn has filed one belated motion in limine.¹⁵ As explained in more detail below, Cleveland Brothers' motions in limine will be granted in part and denied in part, while Vorobey's motion in limine will be denied.

II. DISCUSSION

Courts exercise discretion to rule in limine on evidentiary issues "in appropriate cases."¹⁶ While motions in limine may serve as a useful pretrial tool that enable more in-depth briefing than would be available at trial, a court may defer ruling on such motions "if the context of trial would provide clarity."¹⁷ "[M]otions in limine often present issues for which final decision is best reserved for a specific trial situation."¹⁸ Thus, certain motions, "especially ones that encompass broad classes of evidence, should generally be deferred until trial to allow for the resolution of questions of foundation, relevancy, and potential prejudice in proper context."¹⁹ Specifically, "pretrial Rule 403 exclusions should rarely be granted . . . a court cannot fairly ascertain the potential relevance of evidence for Rule 403 purposes until it has a full record relevant to the putatively objectionable evidence."²⁰ Regardless, "in limine rulings are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge may always change his mind during the course of a trial."²¹

A. Cleveland Brothers' Motions in Limine

1. Evidence Related to the Underlying Actions

Cleveland Brothers first argues that Vorobey should be precluded from introducing evidence that: (1) Vorobey and Third Party Defendant Miller were not asked to participate in mediation in the Underlying Actions; (2) the plaintiffs in the Underlying Actions did not name Vorobey as a defendant; (3) Cleveland Brothers attempted to file a voluntary discontinuance as to Vorobey in the Underlying Actions; (4) Cleveland Brothers sought in the Underlying Actions to protect from disclosure its financial information and data; and (5) Vorobey had filed a personal injury action against Cleveland Brothers, which Cleveland Brothers settled.²² Vorobey agrees that it will not seek to introduce evidence of the personal injury action, but responds that the other evidence is admissible, as it will help the jury understand why Vorobey was not a participant in the Underlying Actions.²³

The Court concludes that Vorobey's proffered evidence is irrelevant to the matters remaining for trial. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence is relevant "if it tends to make the existence or nonexistence of a disputed material fact more probable than it would be without that evidence."²⁴ Vorobey's primary difficulty in establishing that any of the proffered evidence is relevant are the elements for a claim of negligence that Cleveland Brothers must establish to demonstrate Vorobey's liability. To prove negligence, Cleveland Brothers must establish "four elements: (1) a legally recognized duty that the defendant conform to a standard of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) causation between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damage to the plaintiff."²⁵

As discussed above, Vorobey first seeks to introduce evidence that Vorobey and Miller were not asked to participate in mediation in the Underlying Actions. That has no relevance to this action; it does not tend to make it more probable that Vorobey did not have a legally recognized duty, did not breach any such duty, or did not cause injury or damages. Nor would that evidence tend to make the amount of damages —in the event of a jury finding liability—more or less certain.

The fact that Vorobey was not named as a direct defendant in the Underlying Actions would likewise have no tendency to establish or disprove any element of negligence. The only possible purpose of this evidence would be to imply to the jury that Vorobey must not have been negligent or he would have been named as a defendant in the Underlying Actions. But that is precisely the question that the jury must decide here. Similarly, the fact that Cleveland Brothers attempted to file a voluntary discontinuance as to Vorobey in the Underlying Actions does nothing to prove or disprove Cleveland Brothers' cause of action but, instead, would again only serve to imply to the jury that Vorobey must not have been negligent or Cleveland Brothers would not have sought Vorobey's voluntary dismissal in the Underlying Actions. Finally, the fact that Cleveland Brothers sought to protect its financial information and data from disclosure has absolutely no bearing on either liability or potential damages here.

Even if the proffered evidence had some marginal relevance, it would remain inadmissible. The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that "relevant evidence may be excluded 'if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.' "²⁶ "Rule 403 recognizes that a cost/benefit analysis must be employed to determine whether or not to admit evidence; relevance alone does not ensure its admissibility."²⁷ The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has recognized a general "presumption in favor of admission" of relevant evidence, which "requires weighing the maximum reasonable probative force for the offered evidence against the likely prejudicial impact of the evidence."²⁸

Any marginal relevance offered by the proffered evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and wasting time. As noted above, the fact that Vorobey was not named as a direct defendant in the Underlying Actions or that Cleveland Brothers attempted to file a voluntary discontinuance as to Vorobey in the Underlying Actions would serve primarily to imply to the jury that Vorobey must not have been negligent in the Southbound Accident. Indeed, Vorobey appears to confirm in his response brief that this is the true motive for...