Loucks, et al. v. Shorest, LLC, et al.

Filing 64

ORDER directing as follows: (1) the 60 Motion in Limine is GRANTED, as further set out in order; (2) because the remaining categories of evidence identified in the plaintiff's motion in limine are unclear and do not identify particular eviden ce, the Motion in Limine is DENIED as to evidence not known to the decision maker at the time of the decision and evidence of affirmative defenses not pled, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 4/26/13. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

VALERIE MALISSIA VEAZEY LOUCKS
and AMANDA VICTORIA WOODHAM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHOREST, LLC, and RHI, INC. d/b/a
SHONEY’S OF CLANTON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12cv304-WHA
(wo)

ORDER
This cause is before the court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Doc. #60).
The Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude eight categories of evidence, and the Defendants
have responded to the motion by stating that they do not object to the exclusion of five of those
categories, specifically: evidence of settlement negotiations; allowing for leading questions asked
of management employees; evidence of Plaintiffs’ income tax records; evidence of the number of
documents or witnesses produced in the case by all parties; and evidence of the bankruptcy,
garnishments, or lawsuits of individual witnesses or the plaintiffs.
As to the Plaintiffs’ category identified as evidence which was not known to the decisionmaker at the time of the decision, the Defendants respond that they cannot consent to this aspect
of the motion because they do not know what “decision” is referred to by the Plaintiffs.
With respect to the Plaintiffs’ category of evidence offered in support of affirmative
defenses not specifically pled in the Answer, the Defendants respond that no evidence is
identified so the Motion in Limine cannot be granted. The court also notes that the Pretrial Order
takes the place of the Answer in this case.

Finally, with respect to the Plaintiffs’ identified category of evidence, documents, or
witnesses not previously disclosed or produced in discovery, the Defendants respond that they
will only introduce exhibits and offer witness testimony identified and admitted by the parties.
Upon consideration of the Motion and the Defendants’ responses, it is hereby ORDERED
as follows:
1. The Motion in Limine (Doc. #60) is GRANTED as to, and evidence is excluded from
trial of, settlement negotiations; Plaintiffs’ income tax records; the number of documents or
witnesses produced in the case by all parties; and the bankruptcy, garnishments, or lawsuits of
individual witnesses or the plaintiffs. Also, the Plaintiffs will be allowed to ask leading
questions of Defendants’ management employees. Finally, only evidence which has been
disclosed in accordance with the Federal Rules and the Uniform Scheduling Order will be
admitted.
2. Because the remaining categories of evidence identified in the Plaintiffs’ Motion in
Limine are unclear and do not identify particular evidence, the Motion in Limine is DENIED as
to evidence not known to the decision maker at the time of the decision and evidence of
affirmative defenses not pled. The Plaintiffs can raise particular objections to evidence at trial,
and the court will address those objections at that time.

Done this 26th day of April, 2013.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE