Lee v. Dennison ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ALEXIS LEE, Case No. 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 DINO DENNISON, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Reference to 12 Driver Leaving the Accident Scene Before Permitted (#91). Plaintiff responded. (#117). 13 I. Factual and Procedural Background 14 This action arises from a motor vehicle accident on September 9, 2017. Plaintiff Alexis Lee 15 (“Lee”) was driving an economy-sized Hyundai Sonata and Defendant Dino Dennison 16 (“Dennison”) was driving a semi-truck as an employee of Defendant Knight Transportation 17 (“Knight”) when the two vehicles collided. A nearby police officer responded to the incident, 18 assessed the situation, and filed a report. Lee filed suit against Dennison and Knight for damages. 19 Defendants bring this motion in limine to prevent Plaintiff from mentioning that Denison left 20 the scene of the accident before he was permitted to do because Defendants argue it is 21 speculative and untrue. 22 II. Analysis 23 A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism made in advance to limit testimony or 24 evidence in a particular area” and is “entirely within the discretion of the Court.” Diamond X 25 Ranch, LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., No. 3:13-cv-00570-MMD-WGC, 2018 WL 2127734, at 26 *1 (D. Nev. May 8, 2018). A “motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or 27 weigh evidence.” IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp., No. 2:04-cv-1676-RCJ-RJJ, 2008 WL 28 7084605, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2008). “To exclude evidence on a motion in limine, ‘the 1 | evidence must be inadmissible on all potential grounds.’” Diamond X Ranch, 2018 WL 2| 2127734, at *1 (quoting Indiana Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004)). 4 Defendants argue that testimony about Dennison leaving the scene of the accident early is 5 | speculative and irrelevant. (#91, at 6). 6 Plaintiff responded, but with a limited opposition. (#117). Plaintiff stated: 7 To the extent that Defendants’ motion seeks to preclude Alexis or her counsel from arguing that Dennison fled the scene of the crash, 8 Alexis does not oppose the motion. However, Alexis should not be precluded from simply stating when Dennison left the scene as part 9 of her general narrative of the post-crash events without characterizing whether or not his departure was “permitted.” A 10 ruling any broader than this would preclude Alexis from providing a full narrative of the events on the date of the crash, which would 1] unfairly hamper her presentation evidence.” 12 (#117, at 2). 13 The Court grants Defendants’ motion and notes that in accordance with Plaintiff's limited 14 opposition, Plaintiff will only be precluded from testifying or insinuating that Dennison fled the 15 scene of the accident. Additionally, such narrative testimony will limited because the parties 16 already stipulated to liability. 17 Ill. Conclusion 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine (#91) is 19 GRANTED. 20 Dated this 17th day of January, 2023. 21 22 LI 23 Kent J. Dawson 54 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 -2-