Denton v. Conveyor Technology et al
Filing
75
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 51 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 6/1/2013. (jlp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
GLORIA DENTON
v.
PLAINTIFF
No. 4:12CV00191 KGB
CONVEYOR TECHNOLOGY & COMPONENTS, INC.,
Individually and d/b/a CONVEYOR TECHNOLOGY
AND COMPONENTS, INC., and JUSTIN CARMODY
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff Gloria Denton’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 51). Defendants
have responded, and Ms. Denton has filed a reply. The Court heard additional argument on the
motion during the May 31, 2013, pretrial conference.
1.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton’s husband and their
marital status and relationship, as well as Ms. Denton’s past marriage and divorce. Ms. Denton’s
request is denied to the extent such evidence is related to the number of hours Ms. Denton
worked and the performance of general household work. Defendants should approach the bench
before introducing or eliciting such evidence for any other purpose.
2.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence related to Ms. Denton purportedly having a
live-in boyfriend, about the relationship ending, her boyfriend’s work, and her boyfriend’s
criminal record. Ms. Denton’s request is denied to the extent such evidence is related to the
number of hours Ms. Denton worked and the performance of general household work.
Defendants should approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence for any
other purpose.
3.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence related to Ms. Denton’s boyfriend
allegedly taking items from the Yates’s home and taking or buying a manure spreader from the
Yates. That request is granted. Such evidence is excluded under Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence.
4.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to the Yates paying for internet
access even though the Yates did not use the internet. Ms. Denton’s request is denied to the
extent such evidence is related to the number of hours Ms. Denton worked and the performance
of general household work.
Defendants should approach the bench before introducing or
eliciting such evidence for any other purpose.
5.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton taking or being
given dog food, horse feed, and groceries from or by Mr. and Mrs. Yates. Without having the
context in which such evidence may be introduced, the Court will not preclude its introduction
prior to trial to the extent such evidence is related to the number of hours Ms. Denton worked
and the performance of general household work. The Court raised with counsel at the pretrial
the issue of how items allegedly taken from the Yates’s residence or costs expended by the Yates
could serve as compensation or setoff, when Ms. Denton was employed by defendants and not
the Yates. Given the Court’s concerns, defendants are directed to refrain from referring to such
evidence in opening statement and to approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such
evidence for any other purpose.
6.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton borrowing Mr.
Yates’s Cadillac and the gas bill increasing. Without having the context in which such evidence
may be introduced, the Court will not preclude its introduction prior to trial to the extent such
evidence is related to the number of hours Ms. Denton worked and the performance of general
household work. The Court raised with counsel at the pretrial the issue of how items allegedly
taken from the Yates’s residence or costs expended by the Yates could serve as compensation or
2
setoff, when Ms. Denton was employed by defendants and not the Yates. Given the Court’s
concerns, defendants are directed to refrain from referring to such evidence in opening statement
and to approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence for any other purpose.
7.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to any claim for compensation or
setoff for Mr. Yates picking up and taking Ms. Denton from the Yates’s residence. Without
having the context in which such evidence may be introduced, the Court will not preclude its
introduction prior to trial to the extent such evidence is related to the number of hours Ms.
Denton worked and the performance of general household work. The Court raised with counsel
at the pretrial the issue of how items allegedly taken from the Yates’s residence or costs
expended by the Yates could serve as compensation or setoff, when Ms. Denton was employed
by defendants and not the Yates. Given the Court’s concerns, defendants are directed to refrain
from referring to such evidence in opening statement and to approach the bench before
introducing or eliciting such evidence for any other purpose.
8.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton “hollering and
cussing” at Mrs. Yates and threatening to send her to the nursing home, that Ms. Denton ignored
Mrs. Yates’s calls on the monitors, that Ms. Denton spoke hatefully to Mrs. Yates and other
employees, Ms. Denton’s personal disagreeability, and opinions on Ms. Denton’s care of Mrs.
Yates. Ms. Denton’s request is denied to the extent such evidence is related to the number of
hours Ms. Denton worked and the performance of general household work. Defendants should
approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence for any other purpose.
9.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton’s allegedly
bragging about living in Mrs. Yates’s home after she died. That request is granted. Such
evidence is excluded under Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
3
10.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to what a bread bowl cost Mrs.
Yates. That request is granted. Such evidence is excluded under Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence.
11.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to whether Ms. Denton talked
about suing defendants. Without having the context in which such evidence may be introduced,
the Court will not preclude its introduction prior to trial. Given the nature of this evidence,
defendants are directed to refrain from referring to such evidence in opening statement and to
approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence for any purpose.
12.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence related to pills being found in the Yates’
house, Mrs. Yates’s pain medicine being missing, that Ms. Denton was seeking drugs, that Ms.
Denton was high on something, and any other reference to Ms. Denton abusing drugs. Without
having the context in which such evidence may be introduced, the Court will not preclude its
introduction prior to trial to the extent such evidence is related to the number of hours Ms.
Denton worked and the performance of general household work. Given the nature of this
evidence, defendants are directed to refrain from referring to such evidence in opening statement
and to approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence for any purpose.
13.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to the amount of insulin given to
Mrs. Yates and inferences that Ms. Denton was trying to kill Mrs. Yates. That request is granted.
Such evidence is excluded under Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
14.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Home Healthcare Services
having protective health services come and get Mrs. Yates unless Ms. Denton was removed from
the home. That request is granted. Such evidence is excluded under Rules 401, 402, and 403 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence.
4
15.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton asking Mr. Yates
for money for herself. Without having the context in which such evidence may be introduced,
the Court will not preclude its introduction prior to trial to the extent such evidence is related to
the number of hours Ms. Denton worked and the performance of general household work. The
Court raised with counsel at the pretrial the issue of how items allegedly taken from the Yates’s
residence or costs expended by the Yates could serve as compensation or setoff, when Ms.
Denton was employed by defendants and not the Yates. Given the Court’s concerns, defendants
are directed to refrain from referring to such evidence in opening statement and to approach the
bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence for any other purpose.
16.
Ms. Denton’s request to exclude evidence relating to the alleged theft from Chris
Carmody of $80.00 per week is denied.
17.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence related to disciplinary actions against Ms.
Denton, whether Mr. Yates intended to fire Ms. Denton, whether and why Ms. Denton was fired
or terminated from employment with Conveyor Technology, and the circumstances relating to
how Ms. Denton’s employment with Conveyor Technology ended. Ms. Denton’s request is
denied to the extent such evidence relates to the amount of hours Ms. Denton worked and the
performance of general household work. See Smith v. Frac Tech. Servs., LLC, No. 4:09CV679JLH, *37 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 11, 2011). Defendants should approach the bench before introducing
or eliciting such evidence for any other purpose.
18.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton asking Chris
Carmody for extra money for extra hours. Ms. Denton’s request is denied to the extent such
evidence relates to the number of hours Ms. Denton worked, the performance of general
5
household work, and whether defendants knew she was working overtime. See Reich v. Stewart,
121 F.3d 400 (8th Cir. 1997).
19.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton not having an active
CNA license. Without having the context in which such evidence may be introduced, the Court
will not preclude its introduction prior to trial to the extent such evidence is related to the number
of hours Ms. Denton worked and the performance of general household work. Given the nature
of this evidence, defendants are directed to refrain from referring to such evidence in opening
statement and to approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence for any
purpose.
20.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton not having any kind
of power of attorney, guardianship, or legal authority for Mrs. Yates. Ms. Denton’s request is
granted. Such evidence is excluded under Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
21.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton not having filed her
taxes. Without having the context in which such evidence may be introduced, the Court will not
preclude its introduction prior to trial to the extent such evidence is related to the number of
hours Ms. Denton worked and the performance of general household work. Given the nature of
this evidence, defendants are directed to refrain from referring to such evidence in opening
statement and to approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence for any
purpose.
22.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence of Ms. Denton’s pre- and post-Conveyor
Technology places of employment, why Ms. Denton’s employment with those employers ended,
questions related to Ms. Denton’s job duties at those employers, Ms. Denton’s prior pay history,
6
and all other details of Ms. Denton’s work at those employers. Without having the context in
which such evidence may be introduced, the Court will not preclude its introduction prior to trial.
Given the nature of this evidence, defendants are directed to refrain from referring to such
evidence in opening statement and to approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such
evidence for any purpose.
23.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence concerning whether Ms. Denton has been a
party to a lawsuit, filed for or receives social security disability, and/or filed for or received
unemployment. Ms. Denton’s request is granted, see Smith v. Frac Tech. Servs., LLC, No.
4:09CV679-JLH, *37 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 11, 2011), except that defendants are not precluded from
introducing or eliciting evidence relating to Ms. Denton’s filing for or receiving social security
disability.
24.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton’s past arrests and
convictions. Federal Rules of Evidence 609 and 403 govern. Evidence of criminal charges that
did not result in a conviction is excluded. The Court reserves ruling on Ms. Denton’s arrest and
conviction for writing hot checks.
The parties have not specified if the conviction was
punishable by imprisonment of more than one year or whether the crime included as an element
proving, or Ms. Denton admitting, a dishonest act or false statement.
25.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton’s health insurance
or lack of health insurance, her prescribed medications, and medical history and records. Ms.
Denton’s request is denied to the extent such evidence relates to the amount of hours Ms. Denton
worked and the performance of general household work. Given the nature of this evidence,
defendants should approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence for any other
purpose.
7
26.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to whether Ms. Denton
complained about her lack of proper payment and when she decided to sue. Without having the
context in which such evidence may be introduced, the Court will not preclude its introduction
prior to trial. Defendants are directed to refrain from referring to such evidence in opening
statement and to approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence.
27.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to disagreements with Ms. Denton.
Ms. Denton’s request is denied to the extent such evidence relates to the number of hours Ms.
Denton worked and the performance of general household work. Defendants should approach
the bench before introducing such evidence for any other purpose.
28.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to rumors of the amount of money
Ms. Denton is suing for. The Court understands that defendants do not intend to offer such
evidence. Defendants should approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence.
29.
Ms. Denton seeks to exclude evidence relating to Ms. Denton’s perceived
character. Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that evidence of a person’s
character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person
acted in accordance with the character or trait. Ms. Denton refers the Court to Ms. Hardin’s
testimony that Ms. Denton was a “gold digger.” Such evidence is excluded to the extent it is
offered to prove that Ms. Denton acted in accordance with her character. Given the nature of
such evidence, defendants should approach the bench before offering such evidence for any
purpose.
** *
8
Other than as stated above, the motion in limine is denied without prejudice to the right of
counsel to object at trial. For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Denton’s motion in limine is granted in
part and denied in part.
SO ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2013.
____________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge
9
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?