Hayes v. Watson: Clarifying Preservation After Motions in Limine and the “Any-Purpose” Rule for Adverse-Party Depositions

Introduction

Hayes v. Watson, No. 85087 (Nev. Sup. Ct. June 6, 2025), is a tort case that began with an emergency-room incident and ended with a Nevada Supreme Court opinion rich in evidentiary and post-trial guidance. Nurse Britt Hayes sued trauma surgeon Dr. John Watson after he angrily threw or dropped a backboard, fracturing Hayes’s foot. A Washoe County jury returned a defense verdict. When Hayes’s motion for a new trial was denied, she appealed, challenging:

Admission of testimony from Dr. Myron Gomez, a witness disclosed two days late;
Exclusion of Watson’s own video deposition for substantive use;
Denial of a new trial based on opposing counsel’s references to workers’-compensation payments.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed. In doing so it held:

Late disclosure of a witness is harmless, and therefore permissible, when the witness was deposed and already identified by the opposing party.
A motion in limine does not preserve objections for appeal unless the trial court’s ruling is “explicit and definitive.” Parties must still object contemporaneously at trial.
Under NRCP 32(a)(3) an adverse party’s deposition may be used “for any purpose” even if the deponent is available. Blanket exclusion is error, but may be harmless where the witness testifies live on the same matters.
References to workers’-compensation benefits constitute attorney misconduct, but a new trial is warranted only if the misconduct materially affects substantial rights. Different prejudice tests apply to objected-to and unobjected-to misconduct.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t v. Yeghiazarian, 129 Nev. 760 (2013) – standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings (abuse of discretion).
Richmond v. State, 118 Nev. 924 (2002) – a motion in limine preserves an objection only if the ruling is explicit and definitive.
Hotel Riviera, Inc. v. Short, 80 Nev. 505 (1964) – need for contemporaneous objection.
Yamaha Motor Co. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233 (1998) – standard for admitting depositions.
Cmty. Counselling Servs., Inc. v. Reilly, 317 F.2d 239 (4th Cir. 1963) & Wright & Miller §2145 – weight supporting “any-purpose” use of an adversary’s deposition.
Lioce v. Cohen, 124 Nev. 1 (2008) – standards for reviewing attorney misconduct and motions for new trial.
Gunderson v. DR Horton, Inc., 130 Nev. 67 (2014) – burden where objection was sustained.
Cramer v. Peavy, 116 Nev. 575 (2000) – impropriety of suggesting a plaintiff will obtain double recovery due to workers’ comp.
Bowman v. Tisnado, 84 Nev. 420 (1968) – harmless exclusion if witness’s live testimony covers the same ground.
Cuzze v. University & Community College Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598 (2007) – appellant’s obligation to supply a complete record.

These precedents collectively shaped the outcome: they supplied the abuse-of-discretion review framework, clarified preservation requirements, and provided the harmless-error yardsticks applied to both deposition exclusion and attorney misconduct claims.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Late Witness Disclosure

NRCP 37(c)(1) bars a late-disclosed witness unless the delay is “substantially justified or harmless.” The Court emphasized the harmless prong: Hayes had already deposed Dr. Gomez and herself listed him as a potential witness—so surprise was impossible. No abuse of discretion.

b) Motion in Limine vs. Trial Objection

“A motion in limine can preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal only when the district court fully considers the issue, and when the ruling … was explicit and definitive.” – Hayes v. Watson (quoting Richmond)

Because the trial court’s initial ruling actually excluded Gomez’s testimony altogether, it was not definitive on the scope of any testimony he might later give. Hayes had to object in real time when Gomez strayed into expert territory; she did not, so the issue was waived.

c) Adverse-Party Deposition Exclusion

NRCP 32(a)(3) mirrors FRCP 32(a)(3): an adverse party’s deposition is usable “for any purpose” irrespective of the deponent’s availability. The district court’s total exclusion therefore constituted an abuse of discretion. Yet the Court applied Bowman and found the error harmless because: (1) Watson testified live and was cross-examined on the same matters; (2) Hayes failed to supply the video deposition in the appellate record, triggering the presumption in Cuzze that the missing record supports the district court.

d) Attorney Misconduct & New-Trial Standards

The Court split its analysis:

Unobjected-to misconduct → appellant must show irreparable and fundamental error (the “but-for” test) under Lioce. Conflicting testimony on negligence meant the verdict might have been the same regardless, so the threshold was unmet.
Objected-to misconduct → if the objection was sustained, appellant must show the misconduct was “so extreme” that the sustainment and any admonishment could not cure it (Gunderson). The trial court sustained both objections, pointed the jury to the instructions, and, critically, the jury never reached damages (where workers’-comp could matter) because it found no negligence. No material prejudice shown.

3. Potential Impact of the Decision

Hayes v. Watson will likely reverberate in three principal ways:

Preservation Doctrine – Litigants now have a vivid reminder that motions in limine are not “one-and-done” preservers. Unless the limine ruling unmistakably authorizes the disputed evidence, a contemporaneous trial objection is still mandatory.
Deposition Practice – Trial judges must allow the opposing party to play an adverse party’s deposition unless specific, limited objections justify redaction. Counsel can now cite Hayes to resist blanket exclusions.
Attorney Misconduct Analysis – The opinion refines the two-track prejudice test (objected vs. unobjected) first articulated in Lioce, supplying concrete examples of how each threshold operates in practice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Motion in Limine – A pre-trial request asking the judge to admit or exclude evidence before it comes up at trial, so the jury never hears it.
Preservation of Error – Legal principle requiring a party to object at the right time in the trial court; otherwise, the appellate court usually will not review the issue.
Harmless Error – Even if the trial court erred, a verdict stands unless the error probably affected the outcome.
NRCP 32(a)(3) – Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure allowing a party to use an opponent’s deposition “for any purpose,” meaning it can be part of the affirmative case, not merely impeachment.
Attorney Misconduct Prejudice Tests – Nevada employs two different standards: (1) irreparable and fundamental error where no objection; (2) extreme misconduct beyond curative instruction where an objection was made and sustained.

Conclusion

Hayes v. Watson does not change the substantive law of negligence, but it forcefully clarifies key procedural doctrines:

Late-disclosed witnesses are not automatically barred if their identity was no surprise.
A party cannot rely on a motion in limine alone; explicit, definitive trial-court rulings are needed to preserve objections without contemporaneous protest.
Under NRCP 32(a)(3), an adverse party’s deposition is broadly admissible, and its exclusion will be reversible error unless harmless.
References to collateral-source payments (like workers’ comp) remain improper, but a new trial requires a showing of actual prejudice under the appropriate standard.

Practitioners should treat the opinion as both a cautionary tale (do not sleep on trial objections) and a new citation of authority when contesting deposition usage or attempting to cure attorney misconduct. By synthesizing and extending prior case law, the Nevada Supreme Court has supplied a fresh procedural roadmap that will guide trial courts and litigants alike.