Motion in Limine - United States District Court

Case 1:06-cv-22644-ASG Document 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2008 Page 26 of 45
probative value. Moreover, the investigator’s initial conclusion that Mr. Moncrieffe was
probably not wearing a seatbelt was later rejected by OSHA based on additional evidence
it obtained. Thus, Plaintiffs argue that the a conclusion which has been withdrawn cannot
be introduced at trial.
Defendant responds that the OSHA file is trustworthy and should therefore be
admitted. First, Plaintiffs can dispute the statement attributed to Mr. Diaz through the
testimony of Mr. Diaz and Mr. Moncrieffe. Second, Plaintiffs can explain that OSHA later
withdrew its conclusion that Mr. Moncrieffe was probably not wearing a seatbelt. According
to Defendant, Plaintiffs’ argument are directed to the weight that the jury should give to the
OSHA file, and not to its admission.
In Hines v. Brandon Steel Decks, Inc., 886 F.2d 299 (11th Cir. 1989) the Court
reversed the district court’s order excluding portions of an OSHA report because it had
done so by applying the standard from Rainey v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 827 F.2d 1498 (11th
Cir. 1987), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 488 U.S. 153 (1988), which focused on “opinions”
and “conclusions” versus “statements of fact.” In remanding the case to the district court,
the Eleventh Circuit explained that the Rainey standard had been reversed by the Supreme
Court. See Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988). The Eleventh Circuit instructed the district court
to guide its determination of admissibility by the Supreme Court’s decision in Rainey, which
held that a “trial judge has the discretion, and indeed the obligation, to exclude an entire
report or portions thereof-whether narrow 'factual' statements or broader 'conclusions'-that
[]he determines to be untrustworthy. Moreover, safeguards built in to [sic] other portions
of the Federal Rules, such as those dealing with relevance and prejudice, provide the court
26