Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rock-Tenn Company

Filing 119

ORDER denying 59 Motion in Limine; denying 61 Motion in Limine; denying 63 Motion in Limine; denying 65 Motion for Order; denying 67 Motion in Limine; denying 80 Motion in Limine; granting 82 Motion in Limine; granting 84 Motion in Limine; denying 86 Motion in Limine; granting 88 Motion in Limine; denying 90 Motion in Limine; granting 92 Motion in Limine; denying 94 Motion in Limine; denying 96 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 6/22/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
v.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 4:08CV03127 BSM

ROCK-TENN COMPANY

DEFENDANT
ORDER

The parties have filed numerous motions in limine. It is difficult to determine the
admissibility of much of the evidence at issue without hearing it in the context of trial.
Therefore, although many of the requests to exclude evidence in limine are denied, the
parties may renew their objections at trial. The motions are granted or denied as set forth
below.
The EEOC’s motion to strike witnesses whose sole purpose is to testify as to Wiley’s
flirtatious conduct in the workplace [Doc. No. 59] is denied.
The EEOC’s motion to strike Rock-Tenn’s 2001 employee handbook [Doc. No. 61]
is denied.
The EEOC’s motion to prevent the introduction of a list of female employees who
worked for Rock-Tenn from March to September 2007 [Doc. No. 63] is denied.
Rock-Tenn’s motion for the admission in limine of evidence related to Wiley’s sexual
conduct [Doc. No. 65] is denied.
Rock-Tenn’s motion to strike Sessions as a witness [Doc. No. 67] is denied.
Rock-Tenn’s motion to exclude all evidence regarding Cothren’s 1995 complaint
against Birch [Doc. No. 80] is granted.
Rock-Tenn’s unopposed motion and amended motion to exclude testimony
concerning rumors about the circumstances surrounding Birch’s termination with his

previous employer [Doc. Nos. 82, 88] are granted.
Rock-Tenn’s motion to exclude hearsay statements that Birch laughed and smiled
about his written reprimand [Doc. No. 84] is granted.
Rock-Tenn’s motion to exclude all evidence relating to Birch’s 2008 conviction for
misdemeanor harassment [Doc. No. 86] is denied.
Rock-Tenn’s motion to exclude all evidence relating to Yancy’s allegations of sexual
harassment [Doc. No. 90] is denied.
Rock-Tenn’s motion to exclude hearsay statements regarding male employees’
alleged comments regarding their freedom to do whatever they wanted in the workplace
[Doc. No. 92] is granted.
Rock-Tenn’s motion to exclude all evidence regarding Newport’s claim and to strike
her from EEOC’s witness list [Doc. No. 94] is denied.
Rock-Tenn’s motion to strike Brown from EEOC’s witness list [Doc. No. 96] is
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of June 2011.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE