Lee v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Company LLP et al
ORDER regarding rulings on the Parties' Motions in Limine. Denying Defendants' 120 , 122 , 131 , 134 , 137 and 147 Motions; Granting Defendants' 124 , 132 , 133 , 145 , 146 , and 153 Motions. Defendants' 135 an d 148 Motions are granted in part and denied in part as stated in this Order. Plaintiff's 154 and 155 Motions are denied. Plaintiff's 156 Motion is granted in part and denied in part as stated in this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 04/08/2013. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE NO. 3:07CV00098 BSM
NUCOR-YAMATO STEEL COMPANY LP
and NUCOR CORPORATION
As addressed in the April 4, 2013, pretrial conference, the rulings on the parties’
motions in limine [Doc. Nos. 120, 122, 124, 131-135, 137, 145-148, and 153-156] are as
Defendants’ Motions in Limine
Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude reference to acts of harassment that
occurred prior to the 1991 amendments to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 [Doc. No.
120] is denied. Defendants may re-raise their objection, though, if there is no evidence that
acts of harassment which occurred prior to the 1991 amendments continued to occur after
Defendants’ motion in limine to limit and/or define the scope of plaintiff’s
hostile work environment claim [Doc. No. 122] is denied.
Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding the Bennett jury
verdict [Doc. No. 124] is granted. The motion is denied, however, to the extent it seeks to
exclude Bennett witness testimony.
Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude reference during opening statement
to exaggerated facts or facts that will not be in evidence [Doc. No. 131] is denied.
Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude reference to KKK activity in or near
Blytheville, Arkansas [Doc. No. 132] is granted.
Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude non-party affidavits [Doc. No. 133]
is granted. Some of this evidence may become admissible during trial, though, if it relates
Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude affidavits and/or declarations of
plaintiff and other testifying witnesses [Doc. No. 134] is denied. The admissibility of this
evidence is more properly determinable at trial.
Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude exhibits or reference to statistical and
demographic evidence of defendants’ workforce and surrounding community and allegations
of racial segregation [Doc. No. 135] is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is
granted as to exhibits or reference to statistical and demographic evidence of the general
workforce and surrounding community. Such evidence is admissible, however, to the extent
that it concerns the statistical and demographic makeup of the workforce in areas at Nucor
where plaintiff was assigned. The motion is denied as to allegations of racial segregation.
Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude pleadings, motions, opinions, orders,
transcripts, and discovery from other lawsuits and actions of non-parties [Doc. No. 137] is
denied at this time. The admissibility of these documents will depend on how plaintiff
intends to use them at trial.
Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude speaking objections and argument
in the presence of the jury [Doc. No. 145] is granted. The attorneys are instructed to argue
their objections at the bench.
Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence of defendants’ financial and
salary information [Doc. No. 146] is granted. Should that information become relevant at
trial, plaintiff may re-argue for its admissibility.
Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude and/or limit the introduction of “me
too” evidence [Doc. No. 147] is denied.
Defendants’ motion in limine on general evidentiary matters [Doc. No. 148]
is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to defendants’ request to
exclude evidence of or reference to:
accidents, injuries, or deaths that have occurred at any
the presence or absence of a union at any of defendants’
or related entities’ facilities;
the alleged criminal history of any defendants’ witnesses,
managers, supervisors, or expert witnesses, unless that
information becomes relevant at trial or is admissible for
the failure of defendants to provide expert testimony or
defendants’ decision to rescind designation of any expert
the fact that this or any other motion in limine was filed, that
defendants attempted to exclude any evidence pursuant to a
motion in limine, and/or that any evidence was in fact excluded
pursuant to a motion in limine;
evidence concerning insurance and/or attorney’s fees;
evidence relating to claims of plaintiff and witnesses already disposed
of in this and other prior or pending suits;
reference to specific acts of discrimination asserted by plaintiff
or witnesses that were not raise in plaintiff’s EEOC Charge(s)
reference to any settlement discussions or any offer of
settlement which has or has not been made;
evidence, allegations, inferences, and/or testimony that
defendants destroyed or concealed documents;
reference or evidence related to any and all discovery disputes,
including assertions of privilege and superseded responses; and
limitation on questions if jury panel contains former claimant(s)
against defendant or relative(s) of former claimant(s).
The motion is denied as to defendants’ request to exclude evidence or reference to:
(A) the failure of defendants’ to call a particular witness; (B) allegations of discrimination
and/or harassment based on rumor or innuendo in opening or closing statements and witness
examination without corroboration of a first hand witness; and (C) the effect of any answer
to a jury question.
Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude plaintiff’s exhibit relating to Mercer
Surveys [Doc. No. 153] is granted.
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
Plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude undisclosed witnesses [Doc. No. 154]
Plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude unproduced documents [Doc. No. 155]
Plaintiff’s motion in limine relating to additional evidentiary matters [Doc. No.
156] is granted as to plaintiff’s request to exclude evidence relating to any criminal history
of witnesses as it appears there is no such evidence. The motion is denied as to plaintiff’s
request to exclude evidence of events occurring after February 27, 2009, attacks on the
events forming the basis of the Bennett verdict, and plaintiff’s employment history prior to
when he began working at Nucor. A ruling on the admissibility of alleged statements
relating to workplace violence is withheld pending stipulation by the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of April 2013.
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?