Newsome v. Kwangsung America, Corp.

Filing 66

ORDER granting 65 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 42 MOTION in Limine to the extent that the Defendant may present evidence about the circumstances of John Kim's termination and may refer to John Kim's termination in opening statement. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/12/2011. (br, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES NEWSOME,
Plaintiff,
v.
KWANGSUNG AMERICA, CORP.,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:10CV548-WHA
(wo)

ORDER
This cause is before the court on the Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Order, Doc.
#62, filed by the Defendant. (Doc. #65.)
This court previously granted the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Any
Witnesses, Argument, or Line of Questioning by Defendant that Other Employees Were
Terminated for Similar Reasons (Doc. #42), because no opposition to that motion was filed
within the deadline given by the court. See Doc. #62 (citing Doc. #15 at § 6).
Counsel for the Defendant explains that the failure to respond was inadvertent, and that
he did not intend to indicate that there was no opposition to the motion. He further states that the
evidence that John Kim, the replacement for Newsome, was terminated for conduct similar or
the same as the conduct for which Newsome is alleged to have been terminated is relevant and
probative of KwangSung’s intent in terminating Newsome.
The court agrees that the evidence regarding the circumstances of John Kim’s
termination is relevant to all of the Plaintiff’s claims, probative to the issue of Defendant’s
alleged motives for termination of the Plaintiff, and not due to be excluded under Fed.R.Evid.
403, and will excuse counsel’s inadvertence in this instance. Counsel is advised, however, to

take all necessary steps to avoid such inadvertence in the future. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that The Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #65) is GRANTED, and the
Motion in Limine Doc. #42 is DENIED to the extent that the Defendant may present evidence
about the circumstances of John Kim’s termination and may refer to John Kim’s termination in
opening statement.
Done this 12th day of September, 2011.

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