Conversely, evidence regarding recalls that do not involve substantially similar defects could confuse the jury, unnecessarily take up valuable trial time, and prejudice Plaintiff.

In a previous order in Groves, the Court held that the relevance of recalls will be evaluated based on the applicability of each recall to Plaintiff’s defect theory: that Polaris failed to employ a hot side/cold side approach in designing its RZRs; that the exhaust system routing in the Polaris RZRs increased the potential for hot surface ignition on the front side of the engine; and that exhaust shielding exacerbated this risk by allowing exhaust temperatures within shielded pipes to increase due to lack of airflow.

Polaris Has Not Alleged Relevance On Alternative Theory Grounds No expert has opined that either of these recalls contributed to the fire, and Polaris’s own examiner testified that they were “not the cause of the fire.” Higley Aff.

Accordingly, the Court finds that admitting this as evidence of vehicle condition has a high likelihood to confuse the jury and it is therefore properly excluded.

In fact, Polaris’s Investigator Michael Noturo testified that the rotors displayed no signs of brake drag, the vehicle fire did not originate at the tires,3 and there was no physical damage to the silencer.4 Id. at Higley Aff.