Watson v. Palestine-Wheatley School District No. 23 et al

Filing 40

ORDER re motions in limine 37 38 . Plaintiff's motion is granted and the parties and their counsel are directed to refrain from referring to certain evidence, testimony and argument, as set forth in this Order. Defendants' request to exclude as irrelevant any evidence of any settlement of any other civil rights case filed/and or pending against Palestine-Wheatley School District. The Court takes this issue under advisement during the pretrial. The Court will address this issue fu rther with counsel the morning of July 17,2013, and issue a ruling prior to trial. During the pretrial conference, counsel for plaintiff raised the issue of defendants eliciting expert testimony from certain witnesses listed in defendants pretrial disclosure sheet. The Court will rule on objections to such anticipated testimony as objections are made during the course of the trial. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/16/13. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
SONYA WATSON
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 2:11CV00126 KGB

PALESTINE-WHEATLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 23 et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The parties have moved in limine to exclude certain evidence, testimony, and argument
(Dkt. Nos. 37, 38). The Court heard argument on these issues during the July 12, 2013, pretrial
conference and issued oral rulings during that conference. This written order memorializes the
Court’s oral rulings.
1.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any evidence of past garnishments of plaintiff’s wages

and evidence regarding Patti Hernandez’s reprimand of plaintiff in 2011. Plaintiff contends this
evidence is irrelevant because Mr. Estes testified in his deposition that these issues did not factor
into his decision not to hire plaintiff. At this time, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion and directs
that all parties and their counsel refrain from referring to such evidence of past garnishments of
plaintiff’s wages and evidence regarding Patti Hernandez’s reprimand of plaintiff in 2011 before
the jury during jury selection, opening statement, questioning of witnesses, and closing
argument. The Court further directs that, if a party believes such evidence becomes relevant
based on other evidence admitted at or events that occur during trial, counsel for the party should
approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence.
2.

Defendants seek to exclude as irrelevant any evidence of any settlement of any

other civil rights case filed and/or pending against the Palestine-Wheatley School District. The
Court takes this issue under advisement and directs the parties to review Anderson v. Genuine

Parts Company, Inc., 128 F.3d 1267 (8th Cir. 1997), which is the case the Court referenced
during the pretrial. The Court will address this issue further with counsel the morning of July 17,
2013, and issue a ruling prior to trial.
3.

During the pretrial conference, counsel for plaintiff raised the issue of defendants

eliciting expert testimony from certain witnesses listed in defendants’ pretrial disclosure sheet.
The Court will rule on objections to such anticipated testimony as objections are made during the
course of the trial.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2013.

______________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge 

2