Gonzalez Prod. Sys., Inc. v. Martinrea Int'l Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 August 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 13-cv-11544
• Parties: GONZALEZ PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. MARTINREA INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant, MARTINREA HEAVY STAMPINGS INC., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

GONZALEZ PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. MARTINREA INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant,MARTINREA HEAVY STAMPINGS INC., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

Case No. 13-cv-11544

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

August 18, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MARTINREA'S MOTION IN LIMINE [180]; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MARTINREA'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE [168, 174, 179]; DENYING MARTINREA'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE [170, 181, 182]; AND DENYING IN PART GONZALEZ'S MOTION IN LIMINE [184]

I. INTRODUCTION

Gonzalez Production Systems, Inc. ("Gonzalez" or "Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant"), commenced this action on April 4, 2013 against Martinrea International Inc. ("Martinrea International" or "Defendant"). See Dkt. No. 1. On May 17, 2013, Gonzalez filed an Amended Complaint adding Martinrea Heavy Stampings, Inc. ("Martinrea Stampings" or "Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff") as an additional Defendant in this dispute. See Dkt. No. 8. In the Amended Complaint, Gonzalez contends that both Martinrea International and Martinrea Stampings (collectively "Martinrea" or "Defendants") are liable for breach of contract, or, in the alternative, liable in equity under the theory of promissory estoppel. Id.

On June 17, 2013, Martinrea Stampings filed a counterclaim against Gonzalez for breach of contract. See Dkt. No. 201. On November 17, 2014, this Court entered an Order DenyingMartinrea's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Gonzalez's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Gonzalez Prod. Sys., Inc. v. Martinrea Int'l Inc., No. 13-cv-11544, 2014 WL 6455592, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 17, 2014). On January 26, 2015, less than a month before trial was originally set to begin, and after a contentious dispute regarding the admissibility of the parties' expert reports, this Court amended the scheduling order and postponed the trial to quell concerns about prejudice to the parties. See Dkt. No. 155 (moving trial to August 11, 2015); see also Dkt. No. 161 (moving trial to September 22, 2015 at the request of the parties).

Martinrea has now filed ten Motions in Limine in preparation for trial [168, 170, 174, 180, 181, 182, 186, 188, 190] covering several evidentiary issues, while Gonzalez filed one Motion in Limine [184] covering five distinct evidentiary issues. The Motions are fully briefed. The Court held a Daubert hearing on August 10, 2015 and resolved the Motions with respect to expert testimony [184, 186, 188, 190] in an Opinion and Order dated August 13, 2015. After reviewing and considering the parties Motions and supporting briefs, the parties' responses thereto, and the entire record of this matter; the Court has determined that the relevant allegations, facts, and legal arguments are adequately presented, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process for the remaining Motions in Limine.

Therefore, the Court will resolve Martinrea's remaining Motions in Limine [168, 170, 174, 179, 180, 181, 182] and the remaining "Evidentiary Issues" in Gonzalez's Motion in Limine [184] "on the briefs." See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will GRANT Martinrea's Motion in Limine [180]; GRANT in part and DENY in part Martinrea's Motions in Limine [168, 174, 179]; DENY Martinrea's Motions in Limine [170, 181, 182]; and DENY "Evidentiary Issues Numbers Three, Four and Five" of Gonzalez's Motion in Limine [184]. The Court's Opinion and Order is set forth in detail below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under appropriate circumstances, motions in limine may be used to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before it is actually offered at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984). The use of motions in limine "by the trial court is purely discretionary and generally confined to very specific evidentiary issues of an extremely prejudicial nature." United States v. Certain Land Situated in City of Detroit, Wayne Cnty., State of Mich., 547 F. Supp. 680, 681 (E.D. Mich. 1982) (citing Wright & Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence, P 5037).

Judge David M. Lawson of this district has noted that motions in limine serve the following purposes prior to the commencement of trial:

[Motions in Limine] (i) facilitate trial preparation by providing information pertinent to strategic decisions; (ii) reduce distractions during trial and provide for a smoother presentation of evidence to the jury; (iii) enhance the possibility of settlement of disputes without trial; (iv) provide some additional insulation of the jury from prejudicial inadmissible evidence; and (v) improve the conditions under which the trial judge must address evidence issues by reducing the need for hasty decisions during the heat of trial.

Figgins v. Advance Am. Cash Advance Centers of Michigan, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 2d 861, 865 (E.D. Mich. 2007) (quoting Report of Kentucky Study Committee, 1989, p. 5, quoted in Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook, pp. 33-34 (3d ed. 1993)); see also Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that a purpose of motions in limine is to avoid the futile attempt of "unring[ing] the bell" when jurors have seen or heard inadmissible evidence, even when stricken from the record) (citation omitted); U.S. v. Tokash, 282 F.3d 962, 968 (7th Cir. 2002) (noting that motions in limine serve to streamline trials by settling evidentiary disputes in advance and by minimizing side-bar conferences and other disruptions at trial) (citation omitted); Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 913 F.2d 1064, 1069 (3d Cir.1990)(stating that an in limine motion "is designed to narrow the evidentiary issues for trial and to eliminate unnecessary trial interruptions.") (citation omitted).

Nevertheless, "one practical difficulty in ruling on such motions is the absence of context that comes when the challenged evidence is presented with the other proofs at trial." Figgins, 482 F. Supp. 2d at 865. Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has stated that "[o]rders in limine which exclude broad categories of evidence should rarely be employed. A better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence as they arise." Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975); see also Dunn ex rel. Albery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 264 F.R.D. 266, 274 (E.D. Mich. 2009) ("Normally, motions in limine are not proper procedural devices for the wholesale disposition of theories or defenses.") (citation omitted); Land Situated in City of Detroit, 547 F. Supp. at 681("Any broad pretrial exclusion of evidence . . . must be approached with great caution.").

Accordingly, "[i]t may be desirable in many cases to defer ruling on objections until trial[.]" Figgins, 482 F. Supp. 2d at 865. Nonetheless, "[i]t may also be appropriate for the Court to consider an in limine motion when it is more efficient to rule prior to trial and the pre-trial motion facilitates more thorough briefing than would likely be available during the course of trial." Frintner v. TruePosition, 892 F. Supp. 2d 699, 707 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (citing In re Japanese Electronic Products antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d, 260 (3d. Cir. 1983) rev'd on other grounds by Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986)). The determination is ultimately left to the Court's discretion. See Land Situated in City of Detroit, 547 F. Supp. at 681.

III. DISCUSSION

Martinrea has the following seven Motions in Limine remaining in preparation for trial: (1) to Exclude Reference to Allegations of Injury or Death Purportedly Caused by Robots [168]; (2) to Exclude Gonzalez's Improper Lay Opinion Testimony Concerning Robots and Their Functionality [170]; (3) to Exclude Lay Witness Testimony Regarding Gonzalez's Alleged Damages [174]; (4) to Exclude References to any Alleged Corporate Greed, Callousness, Financial Resources or any So-Called "Deep Pockets" Arguments [179]; (5) to Exclude References to the Court's Summary Judgment Order and Other Pretrial Hearings and Papers [180]; (6) to Preclude Contradiction or Rebuttal of Martinrea's Expert Witness Reports [181]; and (7) to Enforce this Court's Order Concerning "Cycle Time Observations" and "Robot Inspection, Maintenance, Repair or Replacement" Records [182]. Gonzalez filed one Motion in Limine [184], but has three separate "Evidentiary Issues" remaining: the testimony of Martinrea's fact witnesses ("Evidentiary Issue Number Three"), the "law of the case" doctrine ("Evidentiary Issue Number Four"), and the form of witness testimony at trial ("Evidentiary Issue Number Five"). A discussion of the parties' Motions is below.

A. MARTINREA'S MOTIONS

Although Martinrea filed ten Motions in Limine, the Court already addressed three of the Motions covering the testimony of proposed experts Clark J. Radcliff [186], Michael J. Tracy [188], and Lawrence A. Simon [190]. The Court will now address the remaining Motions in Limine [168, 170, 174, 179, 180, 181, 182] in turn below.

1. The Court will Grant in Part and Deny in Part "Martinrea's Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to Allegations of Injury or Death Purportedly Caused by Robots" [168].

Martinrea's first Motion in Limine seeks three things: (1) to "prohibit Mr. [Ronald] Pearce, or any other witness, from testifying that a robot 'almost cut a guy's head off,' or wordsto that effect because such testimony is inadmissible hearsay;" (2) to "categorically prohibit all testimony related to such contentions because even if a witness has personal knowledge of such an event, the probative value of such evidence would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice;" and (3) to "prohibit any evidence or argument about other alleged injuries and/or accidents in other facilities because it is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial" Dkt. No. 168...