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
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1
Plaintiffs move to exclude Honeywell International from mentioning at trial that
plaintiffs have settled with any other defendants.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, which is the only remaining
defendant in this matter.
1Docket No. 420.
2Docket No. 450.
-1-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 533 Filed 07/01/21 Page 1 of 5

Pursuant to Rule 408, Federal Rules of Evidence, plaintiffs now move to exclude
Honeywell from mentioning at trial that plaintiffs have settled with any other defendants.
Discussion
“Under Rule 408, statements made during settlement negotiations generally cannot
be used as evidence to either prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or
to impeach a statement made during such negotiations.” Roost Project, LLC v. Andersen
Construction Co., 437 F. Supp. 3d 808, 818 (D. Idaho 2020). “[T]he same prohibition
extends to evidence of completed settlements in other cases where the evidence is offered
against the compromiser.” Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 640 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
Plaintiffs have settled with a number of other defendants and thus they argue that
Honeywell should be precluded from mentioning these settlements at trial. Honeywell,
however, disagrees. Honeywell points out that, “by its own terms,” Rule 408
is one of limited applicability. In other words, Rule 408 is
designed to ensure that parties may make offers during settle-
ment negotiations without fear that those same offers will be
used to establish liability should settlement efforts fail. When
statements made during settlement are introduced for a purpose
unrelated to liability, the policy underlying the Rule is not
injured.
Rhoades v. Avon Products, Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1161–62 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, Honeywell
contends, and plaintiffs concede,3 that evidence regarding settlements can be admitted to
impeach a witness on the issues of bias or prejudice. But plaintiffs argue that Honeywell has
3Reply to Defendant Honeywell’s Response [etc.] at 2, Docket No. 495.
-2-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 533 Filed 07/01/21 Page 2 of 5

not offered any specific examples of which witnesses it might want to impeach on these
issues, and they request that the court defer ruling on this motion until Honeywell makes a
request to impeach a witness using evidence of settlement.
There is no reason to defer ruling on the instant motion. Plaintiffs sought a blanket
exclusion of any mention that they had settled with other defendants. But, plaintiffs are not
entitled to such a blanket exclusion because evidence of settlement can be admissible for
purposes other than to “prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim. . . .”
Roost Project, 437 F. Supp. 3d at 818. Evidence of settlement is admissible for other
purposes, “such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice[.]” FRE 408(b).
Honeywell also contends that evidence of settlement may be admitted for purposes
of allocation of fault. AS 09.17.080 provides, in pertinent part, that
[i]n all actions involving fault of more than one person, includ-
ing third-party defendants and persons who have settled or
otherwise been released, the court, unless otherwise agreed by
all parties, shall instruct the jury to answer special interrogato-
ries or, if there is no jury, shall make findings, indicating
* * *
(2) the percentage of the total fault that is allocated to each
claimant, defendant, third-party defendant, person who has been
released from liability, or other person responsible for the
damages. . . .
Honeywell argues that the jury must be instructed regarding apportionment and the released
parties included on the verdict form, which means that the jury will have to be informed of
the fact of settlement prior to rendering a verdict. It is for this reason Honeywell suggests
-3-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 533 Filed 07/01/21 Page 3 of 5

that Alaska has a pattern jury instruction entitled “Evidence of Settlement” which is to be
used “when the jury has heard evidence regarding a settlement.”4 Honeywell argues that
evidence related to a settlement is thus admissible to identify parties to whom liability can
be apportioned under AS 09.17.080.
As plaintiffs acknowledge,5 settling defendants can be listed on a special verdict form.
But, that does not necessarily mean that the jury has to be informed that some of the entities
or persons listed on the verdict form have settled, given that the allocation of fault is not
dependent on whether a particular party has settled. In fact, the Alaska Pattern Jury
Instruction for Allocation of Fault to Absent Parties provides: “You must make decisions
regarding the fault of some [persons who] [entities that] are [not] [no longer] parties in this
case. Do not speculate about the reasons that these [persons] [entities] are [not] [no longer]
parties.”6 The jury in this case will be instructed in accordance with Alaska law as regards
allocation of fault, if any, between Honeywell and the defendants which have settled. This
can be done without mentioning the fact of settlement.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude any mention of settlements with the other defendants is
denied. Evidence of settlement may not be offered “to prove or disprove the validity or
4Alaska Pattern Instruction 03.18 Directions for Use.
5Reply to Defendant Honeywell’s Response [etc.] at 2, Docket No. 495.
6Alaska Pattern Instruction 3.17.
-4-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 533 Filed 07/01/21 Page 4 of 5

amount of a disputed claim” but it can be offered for other purposes, such as to “prov[e] a
witness’s bias or prejudice[.]” FRE 408(a). At trial, plaintiffs may, of course, raise an
objection if they believe that Honeywell is attempting to introduce evidence of settlement for
an improper purpose.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 1st day of July, 2021.
/s/ H. Russel Holland
United States District Judge
-5-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 533 Filed 07/01/21 Page 5 of 5