Rollins et al v. Alabama Community College System et al
ORDER directing that the plaintiff's 249 Objection is SUSTAINED as to Exhibits 50 and 51 and OVERRULED, subject to the proper foundation being laid, as to defendants' Exhibit 43. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 10/25/11. (djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SHEMEDREA JOHNSON, RENODA
THOMAS, and TAMARA WARD,
ALABAMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SYSTEM; et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:09cv636-WHA
This is cause is before the court on Plaintiff Ward’s Objections to Defendants’ Exhibit
List (Doc. #249).
Plaintiff Ward has objected to Defendants’ Exhibits 43, 50, and 51.
Exhibit 43 consists of letters of recommendation of Michael Barrett. Ward contends that
this exhibit contains inadmissible hearsay, and is not admissible as a business record.
The Defendants respond that the letters are not offered for the truth of the matter, but are
offered to show the effect that knowledge of Michael Barrett’s previous experience, leadership
abilities, and level of expertise had on the decision maker.
The letters of recommendation, of course, do not show the effect of any knowledge on a
decision maker. The Defendants may offer the letters for the limited purpose of demonstrating a
basis for the decision maker’s belief in Barrett’s qualifications, but the proper foundation must
be laid that the letters were in fact considered by the decision maker before the letters will be
admitted over the Plaintiff’s hearsay objection.
The Defendants have agreed to withdraw Exhibits 50 and 51 (Doc. #313 at p.2).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Objection is SUSTAINED as to Exhibits 50 and 51 and
OVERRULED, subject to the proper foundation being laid, as to Defendants’ Exhibit 43.
Done this 25th day of October, 2011.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?