Sims v. Coosa County Board of Education

Filing 38

ORDER directing as follows: (1) the 27 MOTION in Limine precluding testimony or other evidence concerning Hiring of Pam Jones is DENIED; (2) the 28 MOTION in Limine precluding testimony or other evidence concerning consent decree is GRANTED; (3) defendant's 29 Objections to plf's exhibits are SUSTAINED. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 9/25/08. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION G L O R IA SIMS, P L A IN T IF F , v. C O O S A COUNTY BOARD OF E D U C A T IO N , DEFEND AN T. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C A S E NO. 2:07cv704-MEF (W O -D o Not Publish) ORDER P la in tif f Gloria Sims ("Sims") brings suit against the Coosa County Board of E d u c a tio n ("the Board") pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, an d 42 U.S.C. 1981. In this action, she contends that the Board failed to hire her for a p o s itio n because of her race and her sex and then retaliated against her for complaining about w h a t she believed constituted discrimination against her. This cause is before the Court on tw o motions in limine (Doc. # 27 and Doc. # 28) filed on September 12, 2008 by the Board an d an objection to some of Sims' exhibits (Doc. # 29) filed on that same date. The Court h a s carefully considered the applicable law, the substance of these motions and the objection, a n d the merits of Sims' responses in opposition. In this Court's view, the Motion in Limine Precluding Testimony or Other Evidence C o n c e rn in g Hiring of Pam Jones (Doc. # 27) is due to be DENIED. Sims has articulated why th e evidence is relevant to the claims in this action and the Court is satisfied that the re le v a n c e outweighs any danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the jury, and undue delay. T h a t having been said, the Court will likely fashion a limiting instruction regarding this e v id e n c e . O n the other hand, the Court finds that the Motion in Limine Precluding Testimony o r Other Evidence Concerning Consent Decree (Doc. # 28) is due to be GRANTED. The C o u rt is not persuaded that the information is relevant to the issues before the Court. M o r e o v e r , the Court finds that whatever limited relevance this information may have is s u b s ta n tia lly outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the jury and undue d e la y. Additionally, the Court finds that the Board's objections to Sims' exhibit list are due to be SUSTAINED. Based on the rationale proffered by Sims at this point, the Court will n o t allow the affidavits or the Consent Decree to be admitted into evidence. The Court will n o t allow evidence to be shown to the jury which is not first properly admitted. While Sims m a y use affidavits to attempt to impeach the affiant should the affiant testify in a way that is inconsistent with prior sworn testimony this will not be accomplished by allowing the jury to view that prior sworn testimony. Finally, Sims will be required to testify or present e v id e n c e as to her damages without relying on an affidavit from Sims prepared by her a tto rn e y. Her testimony should be based on information within her personal knowledge not s c rip te d for her by her counsel. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Motion in Limine Precluding Testimony or Other Evidence Concerning H irin g of Pam Jones (Doc. # 27) is DENIED. 2 2. T h e Motion in Limine Precluding Testimony or Other Evidence Concerning C o n s e n t Decree (Doc. # 28) is GRANTED. 3. D e f e n d a n t's Objections to Plaintiff's Exhibits (Doc. # 29) are SUSTAINED. D O N E this the 25th day of September, 2008. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?