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, )

Download PDF
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

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?