Matthiews et al v. Crosby Tugs, LLC, No. 2:2015cv05985 - Document 44 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS: Matthiews' objections to the admissibility of certain trial exhibits are SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/5/2016.(mmm)

Download PDF
Matthiews et al v. Crosby Tugs, LLC Doc. 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TROY MATTHIEWS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-5985 CROSBY TUGS, LLC SECTION “R” (5) ORD ER AN D REASON S Plaintiff Troy Matthiews objects to several exhibits offered by defendant Crosby Tugs, LLC. The Court resolves the objections as follows. I. D ISCU SSION A. Exh ibit N o . 2 1 – Lo gbo o ks fro m th e M/ V MORGAN RAY. Matthiews objects to this exhibit on grounds of relevance. As explained in Federal Rule of Evidence 40 1, evidence is relevant if (1) “it has any tendency to m ake a fact m ore or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and (2) “the fact is of consequence in determ ining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 40 1. This Court “is afforded broad discretion in determ ining relevancy.” United States v. Spivey , 50 6 F. App’x 332, 333 (5th Cir. 20 13) (internal quotation om itted). Evidence need not be highly probative to be relevant. See United States v. Marshall, 487 F. App’x 895, 90 0 (5th Cir. Dockets.Justia.com 20 12) (upholding finding of relevance where evidence was “not particularly probative” and had only a “slight” tendency to dem onstrate a fact of consequence); see also Pub. Em ploy ees Ret. Sy s. of Mississippi, et al. v. Am edisy s, Inc., 769 F.3d 313, 321 (5th Cir. 20 14) (“[T]he standard of relevance in an evidentiary context is not a steep or difficult one to satisfy.”). Finally, in bench trials, such as this one, “a relevancy inquiry under Fed. R. Evid. 40 1 is less significant . . . because there is no danger that a judge, unlike a jury, will be m isled by irrelevant or prejudicial evidence.” W illiam s v. City Police Abbeville, 19 F.3d 14 (5th Cir. 1994). Crosby contends that the logbook is relevant to showing the speeds at which the MORGAN RAY transited the Harvey Canal in the days surrounding this incident. Although such evidence is not conclusive, evidence concerning the customary practice of others in analogous circum stances is generally relevant to determ ining negligence. See Restatem ent (Second) of Torts § 295A (20 16) (“In determ ining whether conduct is negligent, the custom s of the com m unity, or of others under like circum stances, are factors to be taken into account, but are not controlling where a reasonable m an would not follow them .”). Here, the logbook, com bined with other vessel speed data and expert testim ony, supports Crosby’s assertion that the CROSBY RAMBLER passed the Daigle dock on 2 November 30 , 20 14 at a reasonable speed. Matthiews’ objection is therefore OVERRULED. B. Exh ibit N o . 2 2 – Au co in Claim s Se rvice , In c. D o cu m e n ts Matthiews objects to this exhibit under Rules 40 1, 80 1, and 90 1. Crosby argues that the exhibit is relevant because the absence of any written description of the incident in Aucoin’s file suggests that Matthiews did not, as claim ed in his deposition, provide a written description of his accident to Daigle’s claim s adjuster. This fact, according to Crosby, calls Matthiews’ general penchant for veracity into question. Federal Rule of Evidence 60 8(b) governs the adm issibility of extrinsic evidence of specific conduct used to attack a witness’s character for truthfulness. See Fed. R. Evid. 60 8(b). “Under 60 8(b), courts have found that proof that a witness has lied under oath previously is probative of the weight to be accorded the witness’ testim ony.” Golden Rule Ins. v. Strauss, 888 F. Supp. 59, 62 (E.D. La. 1995) (citing United States v. Terry , 70 2 F.2d 299, 316 (2nd Cir. 1983)). Furtherm ore, if Matthiews stick to his story at trial, evidence that Matthiews did not, in fact, provide such a description is relevant as im peachm ent by contradiction. See 3 Federal Evidence § 6:85 (4th ed. 20 16) (“Im peaching a witness by contradiction m eans showing that som ething he said is not so.”). The exhibit is not hearsay because the documents are not offered for the 3 truth of any assertion contained in the documents. See United States v. Polidore, 690 F.3d 70 5, 719 (5th Cir. 20 12) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 80 1) (internal quotations and m odifications om itted) (“Testim ony not used to establish the truth of the assertion does not fall under the proscriptions against the use of hearsay.”). Finally, Crosby plausibly asserts that these records will be properly authenticated at trial. Accordingly, this objection is OVERRULED, pending proper authentication at trial. C. Exh ibits N o . 2 3 , 2 5, 2 6 , 2 7, an d 2 8 – Po rtvis io n AIS D o cu m e n ts . Matthiews objects to several docum ents containing Autom atic Inform ation System (“AIS”) data regarding the speed of vessels--including the MORGAN RAY, the CROSBY RAMBLER, and non-party vessels— transiting the Harvey Canal in the days surrounding Matthiews’ injury. Matthiews’ relevance objection is rejected for the sam e reasons offered in response to Matthiews’ objection to Exhibit 21. Crosby represents, and Matthiews does not contest, that Captain Fazioli will properly authenticate these docum ents at trial. Matthiews also argues that som e of these exhibits contain hearsay. However, given proper evidentiary foundation, the docum ents appear likely to fall under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 80 3(6); United States v. Brooks, 715 F.3d 10 69, 10 79 (8th Cir. 20 13) 4 (upholding adm ission of GPS tracking reports under the business records exception). Accordingly, this objection is OVERRULED, pending proper authentication and foundation at trial. D . Exh ibits N o . 2 4 an d 2 9 – Ph o to graph s an d U SCG In s p e ctio n Re po rts fo r M/ V MORGAN RAY an d M/ V BAROID 111, an d U .S. Co as t Gu ard Bu ild e r’s Ce rtificate an d Ce rtificate o f D o cu m e n tatio n fo r th e M/ V GIN N Y STON E. Matthiews objects to these records as irrelevant, prejudicial, and unauthenticated. Crosby answers that inform ation concerning the MORGAN RAY and the other vessels m oored at or near the Daigle dock— including photographs and technical dim ensions—is relevant in evaluating the plausibility of Matthiews’ account and the probable physical response of these vessels to wave wash caused by passing ships. The Court finds that this inform ation is relevant. However, Exhibit 24 also m em orializes past infractions by Matthiews’ em ployer recorded by the U.S. Coast Guard. Crosby provides no convincing explanation for the relevance of these infractions. The Court therefore finds that this portion of Exhibit 24 is irrelevant and properly excluded. Crosby represents, and Matthiews does not contest, that Captain Fazioli will properly authenticate these docum ents at trial. Accordingly, this objection is SUSTAINED as to the “Sum m ary of Coast Guard Contacts” section of Exhibit 24. The objection is OVERRULED as to the rem ainder of 5 Exhibit 24 and the entirety of Exhibit 29, pending proper authentication at trial. E. Exh ibit N o . 3 0 – U SCG Fo rm 2 6 9 2 W ith In s tru ctio n s . The Court has previously ruled that evidence concerning Matthiews’ alleged failure to fulfil his Coast Guard-m andated disclosure requirements following his injury is relevant in determ ining the persuasive weight of Matthiews’ account. 1 The Court therefore finds that the rules and instructions contained in Exhibit 30 are relevant and Matthiews’ objection is OVERRULED. F. Exh ibit N o . 3 1 – D e fe n d an t’s An s w e rs an d Obje ctio n s to Plain tiffs ’ Firs t Se t o f In te rro gato rie s an d Attach e d D o cu m e n ts Matthiews objects that these docum ents are irrelevant, contain hearsay, and have not been authenticated. The Court finds that these docum ents are properly excluded as irrelevant. Crosby suggests that the records “are relevant in that they provided the Plaintiff with the AIS data showing the CROSBY RAMBLER passed his position after 4:0 0 p.m., and it was in his deposition several weeks later that the Plaintiff first stated the accident ‘could have’ occurred after 4:0 0 p.m .”2 Crosby, however, provides 1 2 R. Doc. 35 at 10 . R. Doc. 42 at 5. 6 no evidence that Matthiews ever denied receiving this inform ation before his deposition. Further, Crosby offers no authority suggesting that evidence m erely suggesting that a witness had access to a source of inform ation conflicting with his prior statements is adm issible on that basis alone. The Court therefore finds that Exhibit No. 31 is properly excluded as irrelevant. Matthiews’ objection to the adm ission of Exhibit No. 31 is SUSTAINED. This ruling does not preclude Crosby from using these records as im peachm ent evidence should Matthiews deny at trial that he received this inform ation prior to his deposition. G. Exh ibit N o . 3 2 – Matth ie w s . Tran s cribe d State m e n t o f Tro y Exhibit 32 is a transcript of Matthiews’ statem ent regarding his injury m ade to a claims adjuster on December 16, 20 14. Matthiews makes no specific objection to this Exhibit 32, and instead states that he anticipates that Crosby will use the docum ent during cross exam ination of Matthiews and “reserves his right to m ake objections” at that tim e. Because Matthiews has m ade no proper objection, the Court need not rule on this exhibit. H . Exh ibit N o . 3 3 – Me d ical Re co rd s fro m Te ch e Re gio n al Me d ical Ce n te r, d ate d Jan u ary 19 , 2 0 14 . Matthiews m aintains that these m edical records are irrelevant to the liability portion of the trial because they pertain only to the am ount of 7 dam ages. In response, Crosby contends that the records are relevant because they support Crosby’s theory that Matthiews had a pre-existing shoulder injury and fabricated his alleged fall in attem pt to secure paym ent for surgery to his shoulder. The Court finds that the records are relevant to Matthiews’ m otive to fabricate his alleged fall. This objection is therefore OVERRULED. II. CON CLU SION As outlined above, Matthiews’ objections to the adm issibility of certain trial exhibits are SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART. 5th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of Decem ber, 20 16. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 8

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.