Mony Life Insurance Company v. Perez

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

MONY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:19-cv-2031-WFJ-TGW

BERNARD R. PEREZ,

Defendant. ____________________________________/ BERNARD R. PEREZ,

Counter-Plaintiff,

v.

MONY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and NEW ENGLAND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, INC., d/b/a DISABILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,

Counter-Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bernard R. Perez’s Motions in Limine (Dkts. 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 332, 333) and Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant MONY Life Insurance Company (“MONY”) and Counter-Defendant Davies Life & Health, Inc.’s (“DLH”)1 Omnibus Motion in Limine (Dkt. 310). In addition to these motions, the Court

reviewed several responses2 and replies3 filed by the parties. A motion in limine is a “motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually

offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). Given these motions are generally disfavored, “[e]vidence is excluded upon a motion in limine only if the evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose.” Acevedo v. NCL (Bah.) Ltd., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1188, 1192 (S.D. Fla. 2017). However, rulings on motions in

limine are subject to change when the case unfolds. Luce, 469 U.S. at 41. Upon careful consideration, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Photo (Dkt. 301) is

GRANTED. Photos and other evidence of the arrest discussed in this motion are irrelevant. 2. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Fine Dining (Dkt. 302) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will consider contemporaneous

objections at trial.

1 Counter-Defendant Disability Management Services, Inc. changed its name to Davies Life & Health, Inc. in June 2022. 2 Dkts. 339, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 356, 357. 3 Dkts. 340, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 367, 368, 369. 3. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Travel (Dkt. 303) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will consider contemporaneous objections

at trial. 4. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Ownership of Practice (Dkt. 304) is DENIED. This evidence obtained by MONY in discovery is

relevant to Dr. Perez’s alleged underreporting of income and not unfairly prejudicial. 5. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Boating (Dkt. 305) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will consider contemporaneous objections

at trial. 6. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Car (Dkt. 306) is GRANTED. MONY and DLH have not supported their position that Dr. Perez’s car is

sufficiently relevant to his alleged underreporting of income. 7. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Condo (Dkt. 307) is GRANTED. MONY and DLH have not supported their position that Dr. Perez’s condo purchased in 2008 is relevant to his alleged underreporting

of income. 8. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Nudity (Dkt. 308) is GRANTED. References to nudity or salacious issues will not be

admitted. 9. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Dr. David C. Brodner (Dkt. 311) is GRANTED. The parties agree that total incapacity is not an issue

in this case, rendering irrelevant any testimony offered by Dr. Brodner to that effect. 10. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Undisclosed Evidence (Dkt.

332) is DENIED. With Dr. Perez having personal knowledge of the otherwise undisclosed deposition evidence and the facts underlying MONY’s theory of damages developed during discovery, the admission of this evidence is harmless and need not be excluded under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). 11. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Untimely Expert Opinions (Dkt. 333) is GRANTED. Given they were not timely disclosed, Dr.

Brodner and John Hoffman may only testify as rebuttal experts. They may not offer expert testimony in MONY’s case-in-chief. 12. MONY and DLH’s Omnibus Motion in Limine (Dkt. 310) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. The motion is

GRANTED to the extent that it seeks exclusion of any reference to DLH’s employees being unlicensed insurance adjusters, as Dr. Perez agrees that such evidence should not be introduced. The motion is

DENIED in that it seeks exclusion of the term “cancer survivor.” The motion is DENIED without prejudice to the extent that it seeks to exclude the specialty letters.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 30, 2022.

/s/ William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record