Adams et al v. Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C.

Filing 496

ORDER denying 491 Motion to Amend/Correct and denying 495 Motion to Strike, as detailed therein. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 9/25/2011. (gcp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EARATON ADAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AUSTAL, USA, L.LC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO 08-0155-KD-N

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Order on
Motion in Limine (Doc. 491).1 Plaintiffs move the Court to alter or amend the order entered on
September 20, 2011, and allege that the decision is “unfathomable”, “improper”, “wrong”,
“ignore[s] the fact[s]” and is “in violation of Eleventh Circuit precedent”.
The disputed prior order on a motion in limine denied Defendant’s “request to ‘preclude
plaintiffs from offering any testimony from any of the 18 plaintiffs whose claims are not being
tried’" but explained that in
Plaintiffs' case in chief, the court will not allow testimony from any plaintiffs (not
set for trial) regarding alleged racially discriminatory acts at Austal unless there
has been evidence submitted at trial that one of the trial plaintiffs was aware of
the discriminatory act during his employment at Austal AND the Defendant has
challenged that the act occurred.
(Doc. 481).
Upon consideration, the motion (Doc. 491) is DENIED to the extent that the ruling
stands as a preliminary ruling. The Court excluded the “me too” evidence in order to prevent
mini-trials on incidents not related to the plaintiffs and to prevent cumulative evidence. There are
1

Austal’s motion to Strike is DENIED. (Doc. 495).

five plaintiffs which are expected to testify to numerous incidents, which if consistent with their
deposition testimony, will cover more than a majority of the incidents that allegedly occurred
throughout a very large facility over a period of two to four years. Moreover, as previously
stated, if the defendant infers that the incidents did not occur, plaintiffs will be allowed to present
additional evidence in support of their contention.
To the extent that plaintiffs propose to offer testimony of racial slurs and other racial
activity by supervisors and members of management who participated in promotion and pay
decisions specifically related to the plaintiffs’ remaining pay and promotion claims, the court
will reconsider its ruling upon a proffer of this evidence at the close of trial on Monday,
September 26, 2011.
DONE and ORDERED this the 25th day of September 2011.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE