Malcolm Phinney v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc., d/b/a R+L Carriers; Matthew Dakus; and John Doe Motor Carriers 1-5

E.D. Arkansas

Malcolm Phinney v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc., d/b/a R+L Carriers; Matthew Dakus; and John Doe Motor Carriers 1-5

DecidedMarch 25, 2026

Docket4:23-cv-01095

StatusUnknown

This text of Malcolm Phinney v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc., d/b/a R+L Carriers; Matthew Dakus; and John Doe Motor Carriers 1-5 (Malcolm Phinney v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc., d/b/a R+L Carriers; Matthew Dakus; and John Doe Motor Carriers 1-5) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Malcolm Phinney v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc., d/b/a R+L Carriers; Matthew Dakus; and John Doe Motor Carriers 1-5, (E.D. Ark. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION MALCOLM PHINNEY PLAINTIFF

No. 4:23-cv-1095-DPM

GREENWOOD MOTOR LINES, INC., d/b/a R+L Carriers; MATTHEW DAKUS; and JOHN DOE Motor Carriers 1-5 DEFENDANTS

ORDER The Court has reviewed the 13 January 2026 hearing transcript plus all the related papers. Magistrate Judge Ray’s rulings were, as usual, careful and reasonable. There was nothing clearly erroneous or contrary to law about them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Court adopts those rulings with a few additional words. First, the Court understands the defendants’ position on the punitive damages issue. Under Arkansas law, when multiple defendants are sued for punitive damages, evidence about any one defendant's financial condition is inadmissible when the liability issues are tried against both. Dalrymple v. Fields, 276 Ark. 185, 189, 633 S.W.2d 362, 364 (1982). But information need not be admissible to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The shape of this case for trial is uncertain. Punitive damages remain in prospect, pending the Court's eventual decision on the motions touching them. Beyond that, Phinney

could decide, if forced to choose, to drop a defendant. Or, if there was bifurcation, along the lines of the Crosby case plan, the jury might not find that both defendants were liable for punitives. Relevance for discovery purposes is a low bar. It’s cleared here. And there is a robust Protective Order in place, mitigating any risks from disclosure. Doc. 28. Second, the Court will make a final decision on all the sealing / redaction issues in due course as specified. Doc. 123. Appeals, Doc. 118 & 119, overruled. Rulings adopted as supplemented. So Ordered. PPV4 ALM D.P. Marshall Jr. ‘ United States District Judge AZT March QOrxle

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION MALCOLM PHINNEY PLAINTIFF

No. 4:23-cv-1095-DPM

GREENWOOD MOTOR LINES, INC., d/b/a R+L Carriers; MATTHEW DAKUS; and JOHN DOE Motor Carriers 1-5 DEFENDANTS

ORDER The Court has reviewed the 13 January 2026 hearing transcript plus all the related papers. Magistrate Judge Ray’s rulings were, as usual, careful and reasonable. There was nothing clearly erroneous or contrary to law about them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Court adopts those rulings with a few additional words. First, the Court understands the defendants’ position on the punitive damages issue. Under Arkansas law, when multiple defendants are sued for punitive damages, evidence about any one defendant's financial condition is inadmissible when the liability issues are tried against both. Dalrymple v. Fields, 276 Ark. 185, 189, 633 S.W.2d 362, 364 (1982). But information need not be admissible to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The shape of this case for trial is uncertain. Punitive damages remain in prospect, pending the Court's eventual decision on the motions touching them. Beyond that, Phinney

could decide, if forced to choose, to drop a defendant. Or, if there was bifurcation, along the lines of the Crosby case plan, the jury might not find that both defendants were liable for punitives. Relevance for discovery purposes is a low bar. It’s cleared here. And there is a robust Protective Order in place, mitigating any risks from disclosure. Doc. 28. Second, the Court will make a final decision on all the sealing / redaction issues in due course as specified. Doc. 123. Appeals, Doc. 118 & 119, overruled. Rulings adopted as supplemented. So Ordered. PPV4 ALM D.P. Marshall Jr. ‘ United States District Judge AZT March QOrxle

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Malcolm Phinney v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc., d/b/a R+L Carriers; Matthew Dakus; and John Doe Motor Carriers 1-5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malcolm-phinney-v-greenwood-motor-lines-inc-dba-rl-carriers-matthew-ared-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack