Motion in Limine - United States District Court
Motion in Limine - United States District Court
Motion in Limine - United States District Court
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Case 1:06-cv-22644-ASG Document 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2008 Page 28 of 45<br />
<strong>in</strong>vestigator did not have the necessary expertise to decide legal issues of agency; (2)<br />
<strong>in</strong>vestigator had no first hand knowledge and gathered <strong>in</strong>formation without hold<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
hear<strong>in</strong>g; (3) the pla<strong>in</strong>tiff was not, and is not, afforded an opportunity to cross-exam<strong>in</strong>e the<br />
OSHA <strong>in</strong>vestigator who prepared the report, s<strong>in</strong>ce federal law prohibits OSHA <strong>in</strong>vestigators<br />
from testify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> private civil litigation. H<strong>in</strong>es, 754 F. Supp. at 200-01.<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs <strong>in</strong> this case argue that the OSHA file is untrustworthy for the same reasons<br />
as <strong>in</strong> H<strong>in</strong>es: (1) the identity of the OSHA <strong>in</strong>vestigators has been concealed, mak<strong>in</strong>g it<br />
impossible for the <strong>Court</strong> to determ<strong>in</strong>e their expertise; (2) <strong>in</strong>vestigators had no personal<br />
knowledge and no hear<strong>in</strong>g was held before the Report was issued; (3) Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs have not<br />
had a chance to depose the <strong>in</strong>vestigators, nor will they have a chance to cross-exam<strong>in</strong>e<br />
them at trial; and, (4) the <strong>in</strong>vestigation took place five days after the accident, and the<br />
photos <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the file are of a different mach<strong>in</strong>e, at a different site, on a different date.<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs further argue that the follow<strong>in</strong>g additional factors make the report untrustworthy:<br />
(1) the Report is highly redacted, with the exception of the <strong>in</strong>advertent failure to redact Mr.<br />
8<br />
Diaz’s name <strong>in</strong> one <strong>in</strong>stance ; (2) the Report conta<strong>in</strong>s hearsay statements amount<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
double hearsay, and the second level of hearsay statements do not fall with<strong>in</strong> an<br />
exception; (3) OSHA withdrew its seatbelt violation on the ground that evidence available<br />
did not susta<strong>in</strong> the violation as alleged; and, (4) Mr. Diaz has testified that the Report<br />
8<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs cite to Ferguson v. Bombardier Servs. Corp., 244 Fed. Appx. 944, 950 (11th Cir.<br />
Fla. 2007) for its position that heavily redacted reports are unreliable. However, the report<br />
<strong>in</strong> Ferguson conta<strong>in</strong>ed redactions of f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs and conclusions, where the redactions <strong>in</strong> this<br />
case are only of the witnesses and <strong>in</strong>vestigators’ names. Nonetheless, the fact that names<br />
of declarants have been redacted, makes it impossible to attribute the statements to any<br />
specific person or to give Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs the opportunity to depose these declarants or call them<br />
as witnesses dur<strong>in</strong>g trial.<br />
28