In re Crash of Aircraft N93PC on July 7, 2013, at Soldotna, Alaska

WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
In re Crash of Aircraft N93PC ) No. 3:15-cv-0112-HRH
) [Consolidated with
on July 7, 2013, at Soldotna, Alaska ) No. 3:15-cv-0113-HRH and
_______________________________________) No. 3:15-cv-0115-HRH]
O R D E R
Honeywell’s Motion in Limine No. 21
Honeywell International moves to exclude any evidence relating to any pre-impact
fear or emotional distress and any post-impact pain and suffering.1 This motion is opposed.2
Oral argument was requested but is not deemed necessary.
Background
On July 7, 2013, a deHavilland DHC-3 “Otter” airplane operated by Rediske Air, Inc.
and piloted by Walter Rediske crashed shortly after take off from the Soldotna Airport.
Rediske and all of the passengers on board were killed in the crash. Plaintiffs, which are the
estates of the passengers and Rediske, assert wrongful death, negligence, strict product
liability, and breach of warranty claims against Honeywell.
1Docket No. 412.
2Docket No. 473.
-1-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 531 Filed 06/30/21 Page 1 of 5

An iPhone video taken by one of the passengers survived the crash and was analyzed
by the parties’ experts. For example, plaintiffs’ expert Frank Graham prepared a flight path
reconstruction animation that uses the iPhone video. The video is approximately 3 minutes
and 16 seconds long. At approximately 58-59 seconds into the video, there are two
utterances recorded, “oh shit” and “oh my God.” The accident aircraft impacts the ground
about 61 seconds into the video. The video then continues to run for approximately 2
minutes and 16 seconds.
Honeywell now moves to exclude the utterances on the iPhone video; the last two
minutes of the iPhone video; any comments, suggestions or arguments regarding pre-impact
fear or emotional distress or post-impact pain and suffering; and post-accident photos
showing the decedents’ remains.
Discussion
Honeywell first moves to exclude the utterances on the iPhone video. Honeywell
argues that they are not relevant because plaintiffs’ survival claims for any pre-impact fear
and mental distress have been dismissed.3 But even if these utterances were somehow
relevant, Honeywell argues that they should still be excluded because they would be unduly
prejudicial. Honeywell argues that hearing these last words uttered by one or more of the
passengers would play on the jurors’ emotions and create a risk that the jurors would award
damages based on what they thought the passengers were feeling even though such claims
3Order re Honeywell’s Motion for Summary Judgment re pre-Impact Survival Claims
at 11, Docket No. 372.
-2-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 531 Filed 06/30/21 Page 2 of 5

have been dismissed. “Honeywell believes that these two utterances can be filtered out so
that the full video up through the point of impact can be played with only the two utterances
effectively removed or muted.”4
The video is a real-time portrayal of what happened to Aircraft N93PC. What the jury
may hear on the video is relevant as it lends reality to what they will be seeing. The two
utterances are also not unduly prejudicial. The jury will be instructed that this case is only
about economic losses and that non-economic losses are not recoverable. Any risk that the
jury would award damages based on what the decedents might have been feeling prior to
impact will be significantly minimized by such an instruction. The two utterances heard on
the iPhone video are not excluded.
Honeywell next moves to exclude the last two minutes of the iPhone video.
Honeywell contends that only approximately 16 seconds of the iPhone video after impact are
relevant and have been relied on by the parties. Specifically, Honeywell’s experts opine that
in the first seconds after impact, the engine’s power section can be heard spooling down.
And, while one of plaintiffs’ experts opined that other sounds could be heard later in the
video, Honeywell contends that this opinion was related to plaintiffs’ post-impact survival
claims, claims which have been dismissed.5 Thus, Honeywell argues that the last two
4Honeywell’s Motion in Limine No. 21 [etc.] at 3, Docket No. 412.
5Order re Withdrawal of Claims at 1-2, Docket No. 282.
-3-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 531 Filed 06/30/21 Page 3 of 5

minutes of the iPhone video are not relevant and should be excluded. In addition, Honeywell
argues that the same portion of Graham’s flight animation should be excluded.
The court is not convinced that the entire last two minutes of the video are irrelevant.
Given that one of the primary issues in this case is whether the engine failed in flight, what
can be heard on the video after impact is plainly relevant.
But even if the last two minutes of the iPhone video are relevant, which they are,
Honeywell argues that the last two minutes should still be excluded under Rule 403 which
provides that relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the
issues, [or] misleading the jury[.]” Honeywell contends that the last two minutes of the
video consist mostly of a black screen with periodic flashes of orange from the post-accident
fire. Honeywell argues that allowing the jury to watch this portion of the iPhone video
would serve no purpose other than to play on the jurors’ emotions and could lead them to
award damages based on post-impact pain and suffering, even though such claims have been
dismissed.
The court finds that plaintiffs’ suggestion to only exclude the last minute of the video
will adequately address any Rule 403 problem that the video might present. As the jury will
be instructed that there are not claims for post-impact pain and suffering in this case, it is
unlikely that the jury would be inclined to award damages for such claims.
Honeywell next moves to exclude any comments, suggestions or arguments regarding
pre-impact fear or emotional distress or post-impact pain and suffering because they would
-4-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 531 Filed 06/30/21 Page 4 of 5

not be relevant. Plaintiffs “concede they will not comment [on] or argue [about] what the
decedents felt or experienced prior to impact, nor will [they] argue or imply that anyone
survived the impact.”6
Finally, Honeywell moves to exclude any post-accident photos showing the
decedents’ remains because they are not relevant and the graphic nature of such photos
would make them unfairly prejudicial. Plaintiffs agree that “any post-accident photos of the
scene or wreckage will be redacted to cover any portions showing the bodies of the
decedents.”7
Conclusion
Honeywell’s motion in limine No. 21 is granted in part and denied in part. It is denied
as to the two utterances on the iPhone video and it is denied as to the exclusion of the last
two minutes of the iPhone video. The two utterances on the iPhone video will not be
excluded and the jury will be allowed to view all but the last minute of the iPhone video.
The motion is otherwise granted.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 30th day of June, 2021.
/s/ H. Russel Holland
United States District Judge
6Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Honeywell’s Motion in Limine No. 21 [etc.] at
4, Docket No. 473.
7Id.
-5-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 531 Filed 06/30/21 Page 5 of 5