Wehrle v. Dhein

Page 1 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KAYLEE WEHRLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
RODNEY DHEIN,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:24-CV-2442-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are the Motions in Limine filed by Plaintiff Kaylee Wehrle
(Doc. 31) and Defendant Rodney Dhein (Doc. 33), Dhein’s objections to Wehrle’s Rule
26(a)(3) disclosures (Doc. 30), and the Parties’ objections to each other’s designated
deposition testimony. The Court now rules as follows.
I. 	Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures
Both parties filed their Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures on September 11, 2026.
(Docs. 28, 29). Dhein objected to certain exhibits disclosed by Wehrle on September 25,
2026. (Doc. 30). Wehrle did not file a response, nor did she object to Dhein’s disclosures.
A. Illinois Crash Report
Dhein asserts that the police report of the accident is inadmissible hearsay. Police
reports are generally excluded as hearsay “except to the extent to which they incorporate
firsthand observations of the officer.” F ED. R. EVID. 803(8), Advisory Committee’s Note.
Although an officer is acting in the regular course of business when preparing a police
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 12
report, the report often incorporates information obtained from bystanders. Id. And “the
presumption of reliability that serves as the premise for the public-records exception does
not attach to third parties who themselves have no public duty to report.” Jordan v. Binns,
712 F.3d 1123, 1133 (7th Cir. 2013). “Accordingly, third-party statements contained in a
police report do not become admissible for their truth by virtue of their presence in a
public record and instead must have an independent basis for admissibility.” Id.
Without knowing the contents of the police report in this case, the Court cannot
say whether the entire exhibit should be excluded or whether portions of it fall under a
hearsay exception. Therefore, the Court RESERVES RULING on this objection.
B. 	Defendant’s Policy Details and Salvage Title
Dhein next argues that his insurance policy details and the salvage title for his car,
which includes the words “State Farm Insurance,” are inadmissible because evidence of
liability insurance is not relevant. Therefore, Wehrle should be prohibited from offering
these exhibits.
Under Rule 411, evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is
not admissible to prove negligence. F ED. R. EVID. 411. It may be admissible for another
purpose, however, such as to prove bias, prejudice, or agency, ownership, or control.
Without more information and context on how Wehrle intends to use these exhibits, the
Court must RESERVE RULING on this objection.
C. Remaining Objections
The remainder of Dhein’s objections go to relevance. Dhein argues that the
estimate to repair Wehrle’s vehicle, the salvage title, a Florida Driver Handbook, and
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 12
“What Every Driver Must Know—Michigan Driving Manual” are irrelevant and
inadmissible. Again, without any context as to how these exhibits will be used at trial,
the Court cannot say whether they have any relevance to Wehrle’s case. The Court
therefore RESERVES RULING on these objections.
II. 	Motions in Limine
A district court “has the inherent authority to manage the course of a trial,” which
includes the power to issue evidentiary rulings on motions in limine in advance of trial.
Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Ferrone, 163 F. Supp. 3d 549, 554 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (citing Luce v.
United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4 (1984)). “Prudent motions in limine serve a gatekeeping
function by allowing the judge ‘to eliminate from further consideration evidentiary
submissions that clearly ought not be presented to the jury.’” Id. (quoting Jonasson v.
Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997)).
A motion in limine to bar evidence should only be granted where the evidence is
clearly inadmissible for any purpose. Id. (citing Taylor v. Union Pac. R. Co., 2010 WL
5421298, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 27, 2010)). “The moving party bears the burden of establishing
clear inadmissibility.” Id. (citing Euroholdings Capital & Inv. Corp. v. Harris Trust & Sav.
Bank, 602 F.Supp.2d 928, 934 (N.D. Ill. 2009)). If the moving party cannot meet her burden,
a ruling should be deferred until trial. Green v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. Am., Ltd., 2010
WL 747501, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2010). Rulings on motions in limine are preliminary and
subject to change as a trial unfolds. Betts v. City of Chicago, Ill., 784 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1023
(N.D. Ill. 2011).
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 12
A. Defendant’s Motions in Limine
Motion in Limine No. 1: What any doctor or other medical person said or did not
say to Plaintiff about any type of injury or medical problem Plaintiff may or may not have
had since the accident because such statements would be hearsay.
In response, Wehrle argues that these statements may be admissible as non-
hearsay or under several exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Court agrees that the
statements may be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Without further
context or specific statements to consider, the Court RESERVES RULING at this time.
Motion in Limine No. 2: That any property damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle was paid
for by Defendant’s insurance carrier.
Plaintiff has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 3: That Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, or any witness called by
any party be prevented from making any reference of any kind or nature whatsoever to
insurance.
Plaintiff has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 4: That Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s attorney, and any witness called
by any party be prohibited from injecting any evidence into the case or any questioning
about any drinking or alleged intoxication on the part of the defendant.
Plaintiff has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 5: That Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s attorney, and any witness called
by any party be prohibited from referring to any type of traffic violation issued to
Defendant.
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 12
Wehrle objects to this motion, noting that Dhein received a citation for improper
passing on the left and failure to reduce speed to avoid a collision. She argues that such
evidence should be admissible, particularly if Dhein denies wrongful conduct or denies
receiving a citation.
Neither party cites any legal authority for their position. Because it is unclear how
evidence of the traffic citation would be elicited at trial, whether it is relevant, whether
counsel intends to introduce evidence of the actual citation, and how the citation was
ultimately resolved, the Court RESERVES RULING at this time. See Clay v. MAM
Transportation, No. 23-CV-03159-SPM, 2023 WL 8354785, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2023)
(noting that the Seventh Circuit has not taken up the admissibility of traffic citations
explicitly, but that other courts have found the admission of a traffic citation may be
unfairly prejudicial if the individual did not plead guilty to the citation).
Motion in Limine No. 6: That Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s attorney, and any witness called
by any party be prohibited from making any reference to a claim for lost wages as a result
of Plaintiff’s injuries.
Dhein argues that evidence of lost wages should be prohibited because, although
Wehrle claims the accident deprived her of the ability to seek employment with a school
district in Hamel, Illinois, she testified that she never interviewed for the position prior
to the accident. In fact, she never even applied. At most, she spoke to the principal before
the accident, who told her that job openings were posted on the website. Therefore, Dhein
argues, Plaintiff’s claim for $32,000 in lost wages is entirely speculative. Dhein cites to
Reed v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. for the proposition that “evidence about what an injured
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 6 of 12
plaintiff would have pursued but for his injuries is admissible so long as it is supported
by competent evidence.” 185 F.3d 712, 719 (7th Cir. 1999). In response, Wehrle asserts
Dhein has mischaracterized her claim and that just because she did not get a specific job
does not mean her entire claim for lost wages is negated.
Dhein’s argument is not the proper subject of a motion in limine. Rather than
asking the Court for an evidentiary ruling, Dhein is essentially asking the Court to issue
a directed verdict on the issue of lost wages before Wehrle has even presented her
evidence to the jury. If Dhein thinks Wehrle has insufficient evidence to support a viable
lost wages claim, he should have raised that issue in a motion for summary judgment.
See Zimmer, Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., No. 3:14-CV-152 JD, 2018 WL 1062681, at *1
(N.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2018) (“A motion in limine is not a proper vehicle for deciding whether
the evidence is sufficient to support a plaintiff’s claim, so the Court will not entertain this
argument at this stage.”); Rainey v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist., 2012 WL 2192241, at *1
(N.D. Ill. June 14, 2012) (“[I]n trying to permanently narrow the claims at issue in this
case, Defendant seeks partial summary judgment without complying with the local
summary judgment rules[.]”); Dowe v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 01 C 5808, 2004 WL
887410, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 26, 2004) (denying defendant’s motion in limine where the
defendant sought to eliminate claims “[u]nder the guise of a motion in limine” rather than
through a timely motion for summary judgment). Therefore, Dhein’s motion in limine is
DENIED.
Motion in Limine No. 7: That Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s attorney, and any witness called
by any party be prohibited from testifying about Plaintiff’s financial condition.
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 7 of 12
Defendant cites no authority for his position that Wehrle should be prohibited
from presenting evidence about her financial condition. Wehrle, in response, asserts that
a plaintiff’s financial condition is relevant and can be admissible for the purpose of
explaining lack of medical treatment, citing Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC, 18 N.E. 3d 215,
251-52 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
As a general matter, evidence of a party’s financial status is inadmissible because
it is prejudicial to a jury’s damages calculation. Dahlstrand v. FCA US, LLC, No. 15 CV
7603, 2021 WL 4318322, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2021); Berardi v. Vill. of Sauget, Ill., No. CIV.
05-898-CJP, 2009 WL 2972346, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009). Thus, Wehrle may not
introduce evidence of her financial condition, and this portion of the motion is
GRANTED. However, if Dhein were to suggest that Wehrle’s injuries were not serious
because she did not seek medical treatment, then the door would be open for Wehrle to
explain why she did not seek treatment, which may include the fact that she could not
afford it. The Court therefore RESERVES RULING as to any testimony regarding
Wehrle’s financial status as it relates to her ability to obtain medical care.
B. 	Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
Motion in Limine No. 1: To preclude evidence that Plaintiff has in the past
consumed alcoholic beverages, consumed illegal drugs or smoked marijuana, or any
evidence of Plaintiff’s smoking habits.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 2: Any evidence of Plaintiff’s criminal arrests or convictions
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 7 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 8 of 12
as there are none punishable by death, imprisonment in excess of a year, or involving
dishonesty or false statements.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 3: Any reference to Plaintiff’s prior marriages, divorces, or
separations because it is irrelevant.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 4: Any reference to any prior or subsequent injury to
Plaintiff because there is no evidence to suggest such was the cause of the damage in
issue.
Although Defendant has no objection, the Court RESERVES RULING on this
motion. The Court cannot say, without further context, whether any such evidence is
relevant or otherwise inadmissible.
Motion in Limine No. 5: All evidence of collateral sources including medical
insurance, vacation pay, sick time pay, disability insurance, health, or accident benefits,
including Plaintiff’s ability to receive medical care in the future at governmental expense.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 6: Any reference to any mistreatment or medical errors by
any of Plaintiff’s medical providers during Plaintiff’s treatment.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 7: Any attempt by Defendant’s counsel to lead Defendant
when his attorney questions him whether on cross examination or otherwise.
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 8 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 9 of 12
Although Defendant has no objection, the Court RESERVES RULING on this
motion. Wehrle may raise an objection to defense counsel’s questioning, if appropriate,
at trial.
Motion in Limine No. 8: Any reference to reduced rates for any medical services
at issue or to the possibility that any medical provider might later reduce a medical bill.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 9: Commenting on Defendant’s inability to have ex parte
interviews with Plaintiff’s treating doctors.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 10: Any reference to the poverty or wealth of either party,
including insurance coverage or the lack thereof and/or the ability to pay any judgment.
Although 	Defendant 	has 	no 	objection, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS 	in 	part 	and
RESERVES 	RULING 	in 	part. 	As 	discussed 	above, 	a 	party’s 	financial 	status 	is
inadmissible unless Dhein were to suggest that Wehrle’s injuries were not serious enough
to seek medical care. At that point, the door would be open for Wehrle to explain why
she did not seek treatment, which may include the fact that she could not afford it.
Motion in Limine No. 11: Any evidence or arguments that Plaintiff’s recovery is
not subject to federal income taxes.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 12: Any reference to or argument that Plaintiff’s attorneys
are requesting more damages than they expect the jury to award.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 9 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 10 of 12
Motion in Limine No. 13: Any reference to or argument that Plaintiff’s attorneys
have a financial interest in the outcome of the case on the basis of a contingent fee
agreement.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 14: Any reference to the refusal of Plaintiff’s counsel or
Plaintiff to execute the medical records authorizations Defendant’s counsel requested.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 15: Commenting on the ease with which lawsuits can be
filed.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 16: Arguing or implying that personal injury cases are
lotteries or sweepstakes in which the plaintiffs are seeking something for little or nothing
or the plaintiffs will be asking for more money than the plaintiffs expect to be awarded.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 17: Any reference to the fact that Plaintiff objected to
interrogatories or document requests, or asserted a claim of privilege, during the pretrial
phase of this case.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 18: Any reference to the existence or filing of this Motion in
Limine, or to the fact that Plaintiff has sought to exclude evidence, or to any ruling on the
Motion in Limine by the Court.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 10 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 11 of 12
Motion in Limine No. 19: Any reference to the time or circumstance under which
Plaintiff employed a lawyer, or that a motive, purpose or result of this lawsuit is or will
be to compensate Plaintiff’s lawyers.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 20: Any reference to the effect or results of a claim, suit or
judgment insurance rates or charges as a result of this or any other matter.
Defendant has no objection; accordingly, this motion in limine is GRANTED.
III. 	Objections to Designated Deposition Testimony
A. Dr. Tobias Mattei
Page 40, Line 20: OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s counsel re-phrased his question, which was
then answered by the witness.
Page 48, Line 21: SUSTAINED. Dr. Mattei already testified to the amount he charged for
his IME, his deposition, and any trial testimony. See Page 34-36.
Page 58, Line 13: OVERRULED. Although Dr. Mattei had already testified that Wehrle
had a mild TBI, Plaintiff’s counsel was using his prior testimony to ask further questions
regarding Wehrle’s CT scan.
Page 67, Line 7: OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s counsel was asking a hypothetical question
regarding why a patient would decide not to go forward with treatment, which was
based on Dr. Mattei’s professional knowledge and expertise.
B. 	Dr. Jeff Davie
Page 28, Lines 6-7: OVERRULED. Dr. Davie testified that he has practiced chiropractic
medicine for nearly 30 years and that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty,
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 11 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 12 of 12
Wehrle would benefit from medical intervention including suboccipital blocks three
times per year.
Page 29, Line 5: OVERRULED. Dr. Davie testified he was familiar with the typical and
customary charges for pain management with medication.
Page 29, Line 11: OVERRULED. Dr. Davie testified that his answers regarding how often
Wehrle would need future medical treatment was within a reasonable degree of medical
certainty based on his 20-plus years of medical practice and his education and training.
Page 67, Lines 3-4: OVERRULED. Defense counsel asked the question on re-cross
examination in response to questioning by Plaintiff’s counsel.
Page 68, Lines 4-5: SUSTAINED. As discussed above, evidence of Wehrle’s financial
status, 	particularly 	speculative 	evidence 	from 	a 	witness 	lacking 	foundation, 	is
inadmissible.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	October 9, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-02442-NJR Document 36 Filed 10/09/26 Page 12 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>