JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case arises from personal injuries suffered by Jonathan Lopez when he was hit by Defendant CSX Transportation's ("CSXT") train. Pending before the Court are the following twenty-four motions in limine filed by CSXT (each of which is accompanied by a brief in support) to:
1. Exclude Testimony Regarding Plaintiff's Alleged Need for Adaptive Equipment (ECF Nos. 150, 151);
2. Exclude Evidence Relating to Plaintiff's Allegations that CSXT Modified and/or Erased any Recorded Data (ECF Nos. 152, 153);
3. Exclude Evidence Relating to Plaintiff's Allegations that CSXT "Blames the Public" for Accidents at Crossings (ECF Nos. 154, 155);
4. Exclude Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's Competency to Participate in Trial (ECF Nos. 156, 157); 5. Exclude Evidence Regarding any Crossing Incidents or Accidents at Other than the Ferndale Crossing (ECF Nos. 160, 161);
6. Exclude Evidence Relating to Claims Decided on Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 162, 163);
7. Exclude Evidence of the Parties' Financial Condition (ECF No. 164, 165);
8. Exclude all Documentary and Testimonial Evidence Regarding any Federal Railroad Administration Incident Reports Filed Related to this Matter (ECF Nos. 166, 167);
9. Exclude Evidence Regarding United States Hazardous Material Instruction for Rail Effective 1-1-12 (ECF Nos. 168, 169);
10. Exclude Evidence Regarding any Locomotive Incident History Reports (ECF Nos. 170, 171);
11. Exclude Evidence Regarding Photographs of a Locomotive Cab Interior (ECF Nos. 172, 173);
12. Exclude Evidence of any and all References to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to show Negligence (ECF Nos 174, 175);
13. Exclude Evidence Regarding any Other Incidents or Accidents (ECF Nos. 176, 177);
14. Exclude Speculative Testimony Regarding Plaintiff's Phantom Pain Damage Claim (ECF Nos. 178, 179);
15. Exclude Post-Incident Classifications of Plaintiff (ECF No. 186, 187);
16. Exclude Evidence Regarding Locomotive Work Packages for CSXT 2529 and CSXT 4411 (ECF Nos. 190, 191);17. Exclude Evidence Regarding all Track Inspection Documents and any Testimony Regarding Track Maintenance or Repair (ECF Nos. 184, 185);
18. Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert Dr. Carl M. Berkowitz (ECF Nos. 136, 137)
19. Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert Mr. Colon R. Fulk (ECF Nos. 140, 141);
20. Partially Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Robert L. Rundorff, M.D. (ECF Nos. 146, 147);
21. Exclude Timothy Wagner's Deposition Testimony and Report (ECF Nos. 188, 189);
22. Preclude Plaintiff's Expert Mr. Richard Riley's Testimony Regarding his Status as an Amputee (ECF Nos. 180, 181);
23. Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert Mr. Richard Riley (ECF Nos. 142, 143); and
24. Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert Mr. Richard Riley Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (ECF Nos. 144, 145).
Lopez's guardian ad litem has responded to many of the motions (ECF Nos. 201, 203, 205, 207, 209, 211, 212, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 223) and also filed briefs in opposition to some of the motions. (ECF Nos. 202, 204, 206, 208, 213, 216, 220, 224) The time for filing responses has passed. The motions are ripe for disposition.
For the following reasons, the Court:
1. DENIES Defendant's Motion to Exclude Testimony Regarding Plaintiff's Alleged Need for Adaptive Equipment (ECF Nos. 150, 151);
2. GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Relating to Plaintiff's Allegations that CSXT Modified and/or Erased any Recorded Data (ECF Nos. 152, 153);3. GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Relating to Plaintiff's Allegations that CSXT "Blames the Public" for Accidents at Crossings (ECF Nos. 154, 155);
4. GRANTS IN PART and DEFERS IN PART Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's Competency to Participate in Trial (ECF Nos. 156, 157);
5. GRANTS IN PART Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding any Crossing Incidents or Accidents at Other than the Ferndale Crossing (ECF Nos. 160, 161);
6. DENIES Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Relating to Claims Decided on Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 162, 163);
7. DEFERS Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence of the Parties' Financial Condition (ECF No. 164, 165);
8. GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Exclude all Documentary and Testimonial Evidence Regarding any Federal Railroad Administration Incident Reports Filed Related to this Matter (ECF Nos. 166, 167);
9. GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding United States Hazardous Material Instruction for Rail Effective 1-1-12 (ECF Nos. 168, 169);
10. DENIES Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding any Locomotive Incident History Reports (ECF Nos. 170, 171);
11. DENIES Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Photographs of a Locomotive Cab Interior (ECF Nos. 172, 173);
12. DENIES Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence of any and all References to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to show Negligence (ECF Nos 174, 175);13. GRANTS IN PART Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding any Other Incidents or Accidents (ECF Nos. 176, 177);
14. DENIES Defendant's Motion to Exclude Speculative Testimony Regarding Plaintiff's Phantom Pain Damage Claim (ECF Nos. 178, 179);
15. DENIES Defendant's Motion to Exclude Post-Incident Classifications of Plaintiff (ECF No. 186, 187);
16. DENIES Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Locomotive Work Packages for CSXT 2529 and CSXT 4411 (ECF Nos. 190, 191);
17. GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding all Track Inspection Documents and any Testimony Regarding Track Maintenance or Repair (ECF Nos. 184, 185);
18. DENIES Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert Dr. Carl M. Berkowitz (ECF Nos. 136, 137);
19. DENIES Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert Mr. Colon R. Fulk (ECF Nos. 140, 141);
20. DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion to Partially Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Robert L. Rundorff, M.D. (ECF Nos. 146, 147);
21. DENIES Defendant's Motion to Exclude Timothy Wagner's Deposition Testimony and Report (ECF Nos. 188, 189);
22. Finds that Defendant's Motion to Preclude Plaintiff's Expert Mr. Richard Riley's Testimony Regarding his Status as an Amputee (ECF Nos. 180, 181) is MOOT;23. Finds that Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert Mr. Richard Riley (ECF Nos. 142, 143) is MOOT; and
24. Finds that Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert Mr. Richard Riley Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (ECF Nos. 144, 145) is MOOT.
II. Background1
CSXT filed its motions in limine on October 12, 2020. Lopez filed responses and briefs in opposition to some of CSXT's motions on October 17 and October 19, 2020. (ECF Nos. 201-220; 223-229)
III. Legal Standard
Under Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence is admissible unless the Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or rules prescribed by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Rule 401 does not set a high standard for admissibility. Hurley v. Atl. City Police Dep't, 174 F.3d 95, 109-10 (3d Cir. 1999). The Third Circuit has explained:
[R]elevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. Because the rule makes evidence relevant if it has any tendency to prove a consequential fact, it follows that evidence is irrelevant only when it has no tendency to prove the fact.
Blancha v. Raymark Indus., 972 F.2d 507, 514 (3d Cir. 1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).
Under Rule 403, relevant evidence is inadmissible "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." Fed. R. Evid. 403. Rule 403 mandates a balancing test, "requiring sensitivity on the part of the trial court to the subtleties of the particular situation." United States v. Vosburgh, 602 F.3d 512, 537 (3d Cir. 2010). Importantly, "'unfair prejudice' as used in Rule 403 is not to be equated with testimony simply adverse to the opposing party. Virtually all evidence is prejudicial or it isn't material. The prejudice must be 'unfair.'" Carter v. Hewitt, 617 F.2d 961, 972 n.14 (3d Cir. 1980). "Unfair prejudice" means an "undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." McBride v. Petulla, No. 3:16-cv-256, 2020 WL 1032535, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 403 advisory committee's note to 1972 proposed rules).
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a trial judge acts as a "gatekeeper" to ensure that "any and all expert testimony or evidence is not only relevant, but also reliable." Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Kannankeril v. Terminex Int'l, Inc., 128 F.3d 802, 806 (3d Cir. 1997)). Therefore, when a party seeks to admit expert testimony, the Court must make a preliminary determination that the proffered expert meets the requirements of Rule 702. Magistrini v. One Hour Martinizing Dry Cleaning, 68 F. App'x 356, 356 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993)). After the proffered expert has been foundby the Court to qualify as an expert, the expert is permitted under Rule 702 to testify in the form of an opinion if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact
...
