Rhyne et al v. United States Steel Corporation et al, No. 3:2018cv00197 - Document 402 (W.D.N.C. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting 281 Motion in Limine; denying 284 Motion in Limine; granting 286 Motion in Limine; granting 288 Motion in Limine; granting 290 Motion in Limine; denying 292 Motion in Limine; denying 294 Mot ion in Limine; granting 296 Motion in Limine; denying 299 Motion in Limine; denying 301 Motion in Limine; denying 303 Motion in Limine; granting 315 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 317 Motion in Limine; denying 321 Motion i n Limine; deferring ruling on 323 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 329 Motion in Limine; denying 335 Motion in Limine; denying 347 Motion in Limine; granting 352 Motion in Limine; denying 354 Motion in Limine; granting 357 Mo tion for Order Resolving Admissibility Issues Regarding Certain US Steel-Related Exhibits Prior to Start of Trial XXXXX; deferring ruling on 361 MOTION for Order Resolving Admissibility Issues Regarding Savogran-Related Exhibits. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 9/14/20. (clc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:18-cv-00197-RJC-DSC BRUCE RHYNE & JANICE RHYNE Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a combination of Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ motions in limine. (Doc. Nos. 281, 284, 286, 315, 317, 323, 329, 335, 347, 352, 354, 357, 361; 288, 290, 292, 294, 296, 299, 301, 303; and 321, respectively.) In the interests of providing the parties with the Court’s rulings ahead of trial, the Court below lists the parties’ relevant motions by docket number, all docket numbers associated with the motion, a summary of the request in the motion, and the Court’s ruling on the motion. Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine Doc. Nos. 281 282 367 399 Request Request: Defendants should be excluded from arguing/testifying that Bruce Rhyne was negligent in his use of Liquid Wrench based on the product’s flammability. Decision 284 285 Request: Defendants should be excluded from DENIED arguing/testifying that there was any radiation at the Duke site or that Bruce Rhyne had radiation exposure and worked at a nuclear power plant, and all evidence of radiation and nuclear power should be excluded. 286 287 390 Request: Defendants should be precluded from arguing/testifying/introducing evidence about any payments to Plaintiffs from a 1 GRANTED GRANTED collateral source. (This motion is not intended to raise issues as to any post-verdict offsets.) 315 316 368 398 Request: Plaintiffs should be allowed to introduce specific Mobil documents concerning the benzene content of Liquid Wrench as well as related testimonial excerpts on the same topic. 317 318 379 381 Request: Plaintiff asks that Defendants be precluded from introducing evidence or in any way arguing a list of points. (Parties have since reached agreement for many such requests.) The remaining unresolved requests ask that Defendants not be allowed to discuss: GRANTED (Provided that Expert Relied on the Document) References as to financial status of Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s witnesses (including debts, income, unemployment, or government assistance). (Reserve Ruling) Questioning whether Plaintiff’s witnesses believe that Defense witnesses are honorable or credible. (Reserve Ruling) (Reserve Ruling) References to pleadings that have been superseded, including arguments about Plaintiff’s prior dismissed claims. Evidence about Plaintiff’s unrelated prior or subsequent claims. (Reserve Ruling) Insinuation that the claims are ‘lawyer-made’ claims or were generated by counsel. (Reserve Ruling) Suggestions of reduced damages based on conduct of non-parties. (Reserve Ruling) References to Rhyne having unrelated DENIED injuries, disease, or illness. Any apology or offer of condolences by Defendants. 2 DENIED 323 324 380 Request: Defendant Savogran’s 28th (Reserve Ruling) Affirmative Defense should be struck, and the jury should be prevented from hearing whether employer negligence joined and concurred with Defendants’ negligence in producing any injury. 329 330 385 Request: The Court should prevent Defendants from presenting evidence about workers’ compensation claims and settlements. (Reserve Ruling) 335 336 370 389 347 348 386 Request: Defendants should be precluded from introducing or making references to the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). DENIED Request: Defendants should be precluded from introducing evidence of courts’ prior exclusion of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses. DENIED 352 353 378 Request: The Court should allow certain paid GRANTED medical expenses into evidence for the purposes of trial. 354 355 377 Request: The Court should preclude the report and all testimony by Defendants’ expert witness Dominik Alexander as a ‘net opinion’ under Rule 702. 357 372 Request: Plaintiff asks the Court to resolve admissibility issues as to certain exhibits prior to trial: PTE 104 PTE 105 PTE 106 PTE 118 PTE 120 PTE 125 PTE 126 PTE 127 DENIED ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY EXCLUDED (Except Impeachment) ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY 3 PTE 212 PTE 220 PTE 116 PTE 117 PTE 217 PTE 128 PTE 129 PTE 130 PTE 131 PTE 132 PTE 133 PTE 246 PTE 247 PTE 248 PTE 249 PTE 250 PTE 251 PTE 252 PTE 253 PTE 254 ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED (Limited to Punitive Damages) ADMITTED (Limited to Punitive Damages) ADMITTED (Limited to Punitive Damages) ADMITTED (Limited to Punitive Damages) ADMITTED (Limited to Punitive Damages) ADMITTED (Limited to Punitive Damages) ADMITTED (Limited to Punitive Damages) ADMITTED (Limited to Punitive Damages) ADMITTED (Limited to Punitive Damages) 4 361 362 ADMITTED (Limited to Punitive Damages) PTE 255 Request: Plaintiffs are asking to enter certain exhibits into evidence relating to Defendant Savogran. These exhibits are: ADMITTED ADMITTED ADMITTED ADMITTED (Reserve Ruling) (Reserve Ruling) (Reserve Ruling) PTE 302 PTE 304 PTE 309 PTE 349 PTE 350 PTE 316 PTE 315 Defendant U.S. Steel’s Motions in Limine Doc. Nos. 288 289 382 Request Request: Plaintiffs should be precluded from introducing evidence/testimony about other toxic tort litigation involving any of the Defendants in this case, and from soliciting opinions from witnesses concerning those cases. Decision GRANTED 290 291 375 Request: The Court should exclude any of U.S. Steel’s Material Safety Data Sheets (‘MSDS’) for benzene dated after April 1978 from evidence, as well as any testimony/statements/inferences about such MSDSs after such date. GRANTED 292 293 365 395 Request: Plaintiffs should be precluded from DENIED introducing any evidence/testimony/argument that is contrary to Plaintiffs’ prior judicial admissions before the Court of Common Pleas (PA) regarding the sophistication of Radiator Specialty Company and its knowledge about potential dangers of benzene and raffinate. 294 295 384 Request: Defendant makes several requests regarding U.S. Steel’s corporate library: that documents from this library be excluded as hearsay, that any such AML-related documents accompany a limiting instruction explaining that the documents only show that 5 DENIED (Will Consider Limiting Instruction at Trial) U.S. Steel had the documents in their possession, and that any non-AML-related documents be excluded as not relevant. 296 297 388 Request: No parties should be able testify, argue, or reference this trial as being the first civil jury trial in the District during COVID, or discuss the decision to proceed to trial during the pandemic. GRANTED 299 300 364 393 Request: The ‘Motor Cleaning Document,’ which discusses the potential hazards of solvents (including benzene) when cleaning industrial motors in steel mills, should be excluded from evidence. DENIED 301 302 376 Request: The ‘Mobil Document’ and all references to it should be excluded from evidence, and if so, the deposition of Dr. Mehlan should also be excluded. DENIED (If Relied Upon by Expert) 303 304 383 394 Request: The ‘Gary Steel Works’ document, and testimony/statements/inferences regarding the document, should be excluded from evidence. DENIED Defendant Savogran’s Motion in Limine Doc. Nos. 321 373 Request Decision Request: The Court should exclude certain DENIED past testimony from Mark Monique, president of Savogran. SO ORDERED. Signed: September 14, 2020 6
]]>
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.
