Baxter v. Anderson
277 F. Supp. 3d 860 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court will not grant a motion in limine for a blanket exclusion of a litigation strategy like the "Reptile Theory" without specific, articulated concerns about actual evidence or arguments, nor will it prohibit general appeals to the "conscience of the community" or "Golden Rule" arguments on liability unless they are calculated to incite passion and prejudice.
Facts:
- On March 10, 2015, a motor vehicle collision occurred in East Baton Rouge Parish.
- Nicole Lynn Baxter sustained personal injuries as a result of the collision.
- Nicole Lynn Baxter subsequently filed a lawsuit for damages against KLLM Transport Services LLC and Great West Casualty Company.
- All aspects of the case, including both liability for the collision and the extent of damages, are contested by the parties.
- The "Reptile Theory" of juror persuasion is a strategy outlined in David Ball and Don Keenan’s 2009 book, "Reptile, The Attorney’s Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution."
Procedural Posture:
- Nicole Lynn Baxter (Plaintiff) filed a personal injury lawsuit against KLLM Transport Services LLC and Great West Casualty Company (Defendants) in a federal district court for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision.
- Defendants KLLM Transport Services LLC and Great West Casualty Company filed a Motion in Limine in the federal district court, seeking to exclude "Reptile Theory" testimony, arguments, exhibits, or other evidence.
- Plaintiff Nicole Lynn Baxter filed an opposition to the Defendants' Motion in Limine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the "Reptile Theory" of juror persuasion, which purportedly appeals to jurors' self-interest and community protection, constitute impermissible argument or evidence warranting a blanket exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 or as an improper "Golden Rule" or "conscience of the community" argument?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge John W. deGRAVELLES
No, the "Reptile Theory" of juror persuasion, as presented by the Defendants, does not warrant a blanket exclusion because the Defendants failed to provide objective or specific examples of language, phrases, or evidence to be deemed improper. The court found that Defendants' motion was based on "amorphous and ill-defined concepts rather than specific evidence" or arguments and declined to rule on "abstract and generalized hypotheticals." The court clarified that while Federal Rule of Evidence 403 allows for the exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusing issues, or misleading the jury, Defendants had not demonstrated how specific instances of the theory would violate this rule. The court further corrected Defendants' understanding of "Golden Rule" arguments, explaining they are permissible on the ultimate question of liability, citing Hymel v. UNC, Inc., Stokes v. Delcambre, and Burrage v. Harrell, distinguishing this from their impermissible use regarding damages. It also affirmed that juries are entitled to consider alternative courses of action, applicable safety rules and standards (citing Baham v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP), whether a litigant "needlessly endangered the public," and statutory violations (citing Smolinski v. Taulli) when determining negligence. Lastly, regarding "conscience of the community" arguments, the court stated they are not per se improper unless calculated to incite passion and prejudice, referencing United States v. Solivan. It explained that such arguments become improper when they invoke parties' identities or geographical locations to create an "us-against-them" prejudice, as noted in Guar. Serv. Corp. v. Am. Employers’ Ins. Co. and Reese v. Mercury Marine Div. of Brunswick Corp., but a blanket prohibition without specific context was unwarranted. The court committed to instructing jurors against deciding based on prejudice or passion and to rule on specific objections as they arise during trial.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent evidentiary standards required for motions in limine, particularly when attempting to pre-emptively exclude broad litigation strategies. It reinforces that courts are hesitant to issue blanket prohibitions without specific, concrete examples of how arguments or evidence would violate established rules of evidence or courtroom conduct. The ruling provides valuable guidance on the permissible scope of "Golden Rule" arguments, distinguishing between their use for liability (permissible) versus damages (impermissible), and defines the boundaries of permissible "conscience of the community" arguments, allowing them unless they specifically appeal to passion and prejudice by pitting parties against each other based on identity or location. This decision instructs counsel that specificity is paramount for successful motions and offers a framework for understanding arguments related to safety standards and negligence.
