The Estate of Darrell Duane Lefthand v. Tenke

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

THE ESTATE OF DARRELL DUANE LEFTHAND, through CV 21-114-BLG-SPW DARRELYN LEFTHAND as Personal Representative, ORDER Plaintiff, VS. JUSTIN TENKE, Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff The Estate of Darrell Duane Lefthand’s Motion in Limine. (Doc. 49). For the following reasons, the motion is granted. I, Statement of Facts Just after midnight on June 23, 2020, Defendant was driving north on Highway 451 toward Wyola, Montana. (Doc. 30-1 at 11). Around milemarker 31, Defendant looked and reached into the backseat to check on his dog, taking his

eyes off the road. (/d. at 7). When he looked forward, he hit Melanie DeCrane and Darrell Lefthand. (/d. at 11). DeCrane and Lefthand were killed. After the crash, Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence, wrongful death, and a survival action. (Doc. 1-3).

Defendant moved for summary judgment on May 27, 2022. (Doc. 23). The

Court granted the motion as to the survival action but found disputed material facts

concerning the degree of contributory negligence of each party precluded summary judgment. (Doc. 44). Specifically, the Court rejected Defendant’s general argument that Plaintiff relied on impermissible conclusions of law made by its

expert to rebut summary judgment. The Court held that while an expert cannot

testify to legal conclusions, they can express an opinion on ultimate issues of fact.

II. Legal Standard A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance specific testimony or evidence. Frost v. BNSF Ry. Co., 218 F. Supp. 3d 1122, 1133 (D. Mont. 2016). The Court only will grant a motion in limine if the contested evidence is inadmissible on all potential grounds. Jd. In ruling on motions in

limine, the Court retains wide discretion. Jd. Ill. Analysis In its motion in limine, Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference to the lack of

an issuance of a traffic citation to Defendant after the collision at issue in the case, and any testimony or evidence concluding that Lefthand violated any laws at the

time of the collision. (Doc. 49 at 2). Defendant responded that he does not oppose either request, though he seeks a carveout to the second. (Doc. 52).} The Court will address each of Plaintiffs requests in turn.

A, _ Evidence of the Lack of a Traffic Citation As to excluding evidence of the lack of a traffic citation, Defendant does not

object. (Doc. 52 at 1-2). The Court grants the motion.

B. Legal Conclusions by Experts Defendant also does not object to Plaintiff's request to exclude evidence or

testimony containing legal conclusions that Lefthand violated any traffic laws at

the time of the collision. (/d. at 2). However, Defendant clarifies that he will elicit

facts from his one expert that a jury could understand as supporting a finding that Lefthand violated certain laws. (/d.). The Court addressed the distinction between experts testifying to legal conclusions versus opinions on an ultimate issue of fact in its Order on the Motion

for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 44). Reading Plaintiff's motion, it appears Plaintiff

seeks only to exclude legal conclusions. (See Doc. 49 at 5-6). Based on the Court’s reasoning in its summary judgment order, the Court agrees and grants the

' Plaintiff's reply states that Defendant does not submit a substantive response to Plaintiff's motion. (Doc. 54 at 2). However, Plaintiff mistakes Defendant’s reply to his own motion for Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs motion. (Cf Doc. 52 and 53).

motion, while also allowing for Defendant’s experts to testify to ultimate issues of

fact. IV. Conclusion IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff The Estate of Darrell Duane

Lefthand’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 49) is granted.

DATED this “2 day of March, 2023. hha na 2 Ute SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge