The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
In this product-liability suit brought pursuant to this court's diversity jurisdiction, Jaroslaw Wielgus alleges that Ryobi Technologies, Inc., One World Technologies, Inc., and Home Depot, USA, Inc. (collectively, "the defendants"), are liable for hand injuries he sustained in March 2006 while using the Ryobi Model BTS10S-a table saw that the defendants manufactured and/or sold. His complaint includes claims for negligence, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability under Illinois law. (R. 84.) The parties consented to this court's jurisdiction, (R. 65; R. 90), and the case has progressed to the pre-trial phase. Currently pending before this court are four motions in limine filed by Wielgus and 37 filed by the defendants. To streamline the resolution of this voluminous set of motions, the court has grouped them into several distinct categories and plans to roll out a series of opinions dealing with each category separately. In this first opinion, the court tackles Wielgus's first motion in limine along with defendants' motion numbers 10, 15, 29, and 31. These motions all center on the safety of the blade-guard attached to the BTS10S or relate to alleged safety issues connected to the BTS10S generally but not involved in Wielgus's accident specifically. For the following reasons, Wielgus's first motion in limine (R. 205) is granted in part and denied in part, defendants' motion numbers 10 (R. 177) and 29 (R. 196) are granted, defendants' motion number 15 (R. 182) is denied, and defendants' motion number 31 (R. 198) is granted in part and denied in part.
Federal district courts have broad discretion in ruling on motions in limine. Aldridge v. Forest River, Inc., 635 F.3d 870, 874-75 (7th Cir. 2011). Such motions perform "a gatekeeping function and permit the trial judge to eliminate from further consideration evidentiary submissions that clearly ought not be presented to the jury because they clearly would be inadmissible for any purpose." Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating blanket inadmissibility. See Mason v. City of Chicago, 631 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1056 (N.D. Ill. 2009).Absent that showing, evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial, where decisions can be better informed by the context, foundation, and relevance of the contested evidence within the framework of the trial as a whole. Anglin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 139 F.Supp.2d 914, 917 (N.D. Ill. 2001). "A pre-trial ruling denying a motion in limine does not automatically mean that all evidence contested in the motion will be admitted at trial," Bruce v. City of Chicago, 09 CV 4837, 2011 WL 3471074, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2011), because the court is free to revisit evidentiary rulings as appropriate in its exercise of discretion, see Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-42 (1984).
The core issue to be resolved at trial in this case is whether the Ryobi BTS10S was unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendants' control in 2005. See Faucett v. Ingersoll-Rand Min. & Mach. Co., 960 F.2d 653, 655 (7th Cir. 1992). Wielgus plans to show that the saw was unreasonably dangerous in part by demonstrating that his injuries would not have occurred had the BTS10S been equipped with safety devices including a riving knife or a modular blade guard. He also seeks to introduce evidence of alleged safety flaws that were not directly involved in his own accident. Those claimed flaws include, among other things, the BTS10S's allegedly inadequate warnings, the ease and frequency with which users of the saw removed the blade guard, and other supposedly flawed parts or engineering controls. The following motions deal with the disputes surrounding these categories of evidence.
I. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants From Using as a Defense the Technological or Economic Feasibility of Incorporating Either a Riving Knife or a Modular Blade Guard In his first motion in limine, Wielgus seeks to prevent the defendants from disputing the technological or economic feasibility of incorporating either a riving knife or a modular blade guard into the BTS10S. These devices maintain a constant distance between the guard and the back of the saw blade and help to prevent the user's hand from contacting the blade during kickback incidents like the one that caused Wielgus's injuries. Wielgus argues that the defendants cannot contest the feasibility of incorporating those devices in this case because they made what Wielgus characterizes as judicially binding admissions to the contrary in four related actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ("the New Jersey actions"). Those statements took place in the context of a discovery dispute in the New Jersey actions surrounding whether the defendants would be required to produce documents relating to their incorporation of riving knives and modular blade guards into table saws in accordance with UL 987, an industry safety standard that went into effect on January 31, 2010. In disputing the New Jersey plaintiff's discovery request, the defendants took the position that they "have never asserted and will not assert that the modular blade guard that is now in use was not feasible at the time of the manufacture of the saws at issue." (R. 205, Ex. A, June 10, 2011 Ltr. Br. at 7.) Wielgus argues that in light of this statement of their position in the New Jersey actions, the defendants should be judicially estopped in this case from challenging the feasibility of incorporating a riving knife or a modular blade guard onto the BTS10S.
In response to Wielgus's motion, the defendants state that they will not dispute that incorporating a riving knife or a modular blade guard into the BTS10S would have been technologically feasible prior to January 31, 2010, when UL 987 took effect. Rather, the defendants plan to argue only that it was not economically feasible for them to incorporate these features prior to UL 987's effective date. According to their theory, incorporating the riving knife or modular blade guard into their table saws prior to January 31, 2010, would have violated the then-existing UL standard, which in turn would have prevented them from selling the saws through mainstream distributors and stores. The defendants argue that this is the exact position they took in the New Jersey actions, as revealed by their attorney's statements when viewed in their entirety:
It was feasible in the sense that it could have physically been put on; however, these saws are manufactured pursuant to safety regulations . . . [a]nd the use of . . . the current guard, would have been a violation of the safety standard published by [UL] at the time these saws were manufactured. . . . Physically it would have been feasible to use those guards-the guards that are currently being used, but I'm not saying that would have met the safety standard. In fact, it would have been a violation of the safety standard in effect at the time the saws we're talking about in this case.
(R. 234, Defs.' Resp., Ex. C at 38-39.) In other words, according to the defendants, their position in the New Jersey actions was the same as their position here, that incorporating the riving knife or modular blade guard would have been feasible from the perspective of implementation cost and technology, but not commercially feasible because prior to the effective date of UL 987 those modifications would have affected their ability to sell the table saw at stores that require compliance with industry safety standards.
This court agrees with the defendants that Wielgus reaches too far in his attempt to paint their prior representations in the New Jersey actions as a blanket admission that incorporating a riving knife or modular blade guard onto the BTS10S was feasible in every respect. The evidence that Wielgus has submitted regarding the defendants' statements shows that their counsel preserved their challenge to the commercial feasibility of the relevant changes. Viewing his statements in their entirety, it is clear that the defendants' counsel was conceding the technological feasibility of certain features while preserving his clients' ability to argue that those alternate features would have rendered the saw unmarketable prior to 2010. Under Illinois law, Wielgus is entitled to prove that the BTS10S was unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendants' control by showing that an alternative design was feasible. See Blue v. Environmental Eng'g, Inc., 215 Ill.2d 78, 93 (2005). But he must show that it "was feasible in terms of costs, practicality, and technology." See id. The defendants' prior statements amount to admissions only with respect to the question of technological feasibility, but they are not sufficient to justify the application of judicial estoppel with respect to the questions of cost and practicality. Accordingly, Wielgus's first motion in limine is granted only to the extent that the defendants will be precluded from arguing that it was not technologically feasible to incorporate a riving knife or modular blade guard into the BTS10S prior to 2010. The motion is denied to the extent that Wielgus seeks to preclude the defendants from showing that those features were not economically feasible.
II. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 15 to Preclude Evidence of David Peot's 2004 Guard Design Patent Somewhat related to Wielgus's first motion is defendants' motion number 15, which seeks to preclude any evidence regarding the 2004 patent application filed by David Peot, Ryobi's former director of advanced technologies, describing a new blade-guard design for table saws. In what the defendants now describe as Peot's attempt to differentiate his proposed design from the traditional guard designs, Peot's application includes terms like "flimsy" and "difficult to use" in describing the kind of guard that came with the BTS10S model involved in Wielgus's accident. The defendants argue that any statements made in the patent application are inadmissible hearsay and are irrelevant to the question of whether the BTS10S was reasonably safe for its intended purposes. They also argue that the prejudicial impact of Peot's statements outweighs their probative value because it is "undeniable" that patent applicants say things in support of their applications that are biased and untrustworthy in an attempt to make their inventions "stand out from the rest." (R. 182, Mot. ¶¶ 3, 6.)
This court agrees with Wielgus that Peot's patent application is directly relevant to his position that an alternative blade-guard design was feasible when the BTS10S was manufactured. Although the defendants have said they will not contest the technological feasibility of an alternate blade guard, their stipulation in that regard does not eliminate Wielgus's entitlement to present evidence to the jury on the issue. See Blue v. International Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union 159, __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 1071704, at *5 (7th Cir. April 2, 2012). This court also agrees with Wielgus that Peot's statements are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) as a party admission. A statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party and "was made by the party's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed." Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). All the rule requires is that "the statement be made by an individual who is an agent, that the statement be made during the period of the agency, and that the matter be within the subject matter of the agency." Young v. James Green Mgmt., Inc., 327 F.3d 616, 622 (7th Cir. 2003). The defendants admit that at the time Peot completed the patent application, he was employed as Ryobi's director of advanced technologies, and they have submitted no response to Wielgus's assertion that the patent application falls within the subject matter of Peot's work at Ryobi because he submitted the patent application either on Ryobi's behalf or with its permission. (R. 233, Pl.'s Resp. at 76.) Accordingly, the defendants have not met their burden of showing that the patent application should be excluded as hearsay.
Nor have the defendants demonstrated that the potentially prejudicial impact of Peot's statements outweigh their probative value under Rule 403. Evidence will be excluded under this rule only if its probative value is "insignificant compared to its inflammatory nature so that the evidence unfairly prejudices the defendant." United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 720-21 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nothing about the statements the defendants have highlighted can be characterized as inflammatory, let alone unfairly prejudicial, especially given ...