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

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