Updike v. American Honda Motor Company Incorporated et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Steven Updike,
Plaintiff,
v.
American Honda Motor Company
Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-21-01379-PHX-ROS
ORDER
Plaintiff Steven Updike filed a Motion in Limine seeking for the second time to
prohibit Defendant American Honda Motor Co. from presenting evidence or argument that
certain aftermarket accessories—an antenna and a flag—caused the failure of the rollover
protective structure (“ROPS”) at issue in this action. The Court previously ruled on this
issue (Doc. 221) as raised in an earlier Motion (Doc. 209), and Plaintiff has renewed the
Motion to clarify his intent.
The Court previously stated:
Plaintiff raises concerns about the late-obtained testimony of
Defendant’s expert Eddie Cooper, which ironically appears to
be helpful to Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Cooper’s new
testimony renders the defense of misuse precluded as a matter
of law because Mr. Cooper testified in part that “the amount or
quantity of any additional stress or increased
load . . . attributable to the flag and/or the antenna” had a
“minimal effect in an overall large load” and thus “seemed
irrelevant.” . . . The expert’s testimony, though arguably
helpful to the Plaintiff, does not render the entire misuse
defense precluded as a matter of law.
(Doc. 212 at 3). In the new Motion, Plaintiff clarifies he “did not seek to preclude the entire
Case 2:21-cv-01379-ROS Document 231 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
misuse defense,” but rather “sought to exclude evidence or argument regarding a specific
part of Honda’s misuse defense.” (Doc. 224 at 1). Honda’s misuse defense, Plaintiff states,
includes four components, only one of which is impacted by the Motion. (Id. at 2). The
Court recognizes this distinction. However, Mr. Cooper’s testimony that the amount of
additional stress created by the flag and antenna “seemed irrelevant” goes to the weight of
the evidence, not admissibility. Evidence is relevant where “it has any tendency to make a
fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of
consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Whether the aftermarket
accessories contributed to the failure of the ROPS is a fact “of consequence in determining
[this] action,” and Mr. Cooper’s testimony, though arguably helpful to Plaintiff, does not
render all evidence of such contribution legally irrelevant. As such, the Motion will be
denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine Re: Evidence or
Argument Regarding Failure of ROPS Due to Aftermarket Accessories (Doc. 224) is
DENIED.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026.
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
Senior United States District Judge
Case 2:21-cv-01379-ROS Document 231 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2