Buy This Entire Record For
Below v. Yokohama Tire Corp.
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
February 28, 2017
JOSHUA J. BELOW, DEBRA BELOW, CHARLIE ELIZABETH BELOW, PATRICK JOSHUA BELOW, STAR BLUE BELOW-KOPF and DEAN HEALTH PLAN, INC., Plaintiffs,
YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION, YOKOHAMA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, YOKOHAMA CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, YOKOHAMA TIRE MANUFACTURING VIRGINIA, LLC, and YOKOHAMA RUBBER COMPANY, LTD., Defendants.
WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge
case is set for a jury trial commencing March 6, 2017. The
court held a final pretrial conference on February 28, 2017,
at which the parties appeared by counsel. Consistent with the
rulings during today's conference, the court issues the
following order with respect to the parties' motions and
the schedule going forward.
1) Defendants may file by noon tomorrow a 3-5 page brief
presenting case law and any new arguments in support of their
motion to exclude specific testimony from plaintiffs'
expert, Gary Derian, on which the court continues to RESERVE.
Plaintiffs may have until 6 p.m. on Thursday, March 2nd, to
file a response brief of a similar length. There will be no
2) Tomorrow, plaintiffs shall produce Terry Tadysak and Tom
Malone for depositions of up to one-hour each. Defendants may
file, by the end of the day on Friday, March 3rd, a short
brief presenting new evidence from those depositions and
related argument in support of their motion for a spoliation
instruction, on which the court continues to RESERVE.
Plaintiffs may have until Sunday, March 5th at 5 pm to file a
3) With respect to defendants' 1st, 2nd and 3rd motions
in limine, plaintiffs may offer a summary exhibit
presenting evidence of belt edge separation warranty claims
before the tire was manufactured in 2006 for the purpose of
establishing notice of the possible need for an alternative
design, but not for notice of a possible manufacturing
defect. Should defendants “open the door” by
claiming no litigation has arisen out of a tire failure, then
plaintiffs may offer an expanded, summary exhibit, including
any evidence of similar claims after 2016 as well.
Accordingly, those motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in
4) Defendants' 4th motion in limine is DENIED.
Defendants may make an advance proffer of a curative
instruction regarding confidential information to add to the
introductory jury instructions on or before noon on Thursday,
5) In light of the court's rulings as to defendants'
1st, 2nd and 3rd motions in limine, defendants'
5th motion in limine is DENIED as moot.
6) Defendants' 6th motion in limine is GRANTED
unless defendants open the door with respect to bias during
cross-examination of plaintiffs' tire expert.
Plaintiffs' counsel must advise the court outside of the
presence of the jury if they believe defendants have opened
7) The court continues to RESERVE in part on defendants'
10th and 11th motions in limine pending further
briefing on the scope of testimony by plaintiffs' expert,
Gary Derian. Defendants' may file by noon tomorrow, a
limited brief supplementing their reasons to preclude Gary
Derian's opinion regarding a reasonable alternative
design and a manufacturing defect in the belt curing process,
quoting specific language from Derian's deposition.
Plaintiffs may have until Thursday, March 2nd at 6:00 p.m. to
file a response.
8) The court continues to RESERVE on defendants' 13th
motion in limine pending further briefing on
defendants' spoliation motion as set forth above.
9) Defendants' 15th motion in limine is GRANTED
with regard to lay opinion testimony as to the cause of the
tire failure or Below's injuries during the liability
phase of trial. Plaintiffs may offer lay opinion testimony as
to injuries Joshua Below would have received had he been held