Hooks et al v. Saltgrass Arkansas Inc

Filing 151

ORDER re 60 and 89 defendant's omnibus motions in limine and 91 , 92 , and 101 plaintiffs' motions in limine. Signed by Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker on 5/12/2024. (jbh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
SHAYLA HOOKS, an Arkansas citizen, and
TYROME JACKSON, an Arkansas citizen
v.

PLAINTIFFS

Case No. 4:21-cv-00841-KGB

SALTGRASS ARKANSAS, INC.,
d/b/a Saltgrass Steakhouse

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court are defendant Saltgrass Arkansas, Inc. d/b/a Saltgrass Steakhouse’s
(“Saltgrass”) omnibus motions in limine and Saltgrass’s first amended omnibus motion in limine
(Dkt. Nos. 60, 89). Plaintiffs Shayla Hooks and Tyrome Jackson (“Plaintiffs”) have responded to
Saltgrass’s motions in limine (Dkt. No. 122). Also before the Court are Plaintiffs’ general motions
in limine nos. 1-14, Plaintiffs’ motion in limine requesting discovery sanctions against Saltgrass,
and Plaintiffs’ revised motions in limine nos. 3, 5-6, 8-10, and 12 (Dkt. Nos. 91-92, 101). Saltgrass
has responded to Plaintiffs’ motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 107, 108).
As to those matters about which the Court grants an in limine motion, all parties, their
counsel, and witnesses are directed to refrain from making any mention through interrogation, voir
dire examination, opening statement, arguments, or otherwise, either directly or indirectly,
concerning the matters about which the Court grants an in limine motion, without first approaching
the bench and obtaining a ruling from the Court outside the presence of all prospective jurors and
the jurors ultimately selected to try this case. Further, all counsel are required to communicate this
Court’s rulings to their clients and witnesses who may be called to testify in this matter.

I.

Saltgrass’s Omnibus Motion In Limine

Saltgrass filed its omnibus motions in limine on December 12, 2023, pursuant to the
Court’s Second Amended Final Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 60). In the omnibus motions in limine,
Saltgrass raised 20 points for the Court’s consideration (Dkt. No. 60). On April 4, 2024, the Court
entered an Order permitting all parties the opportunity to file motions in limine until April 22, 2024
(Dkt. No. 74). On April 22, 2024, Saltgrass filed its first amended omnibus motion in limine in
which it raised 23 points for the Court’s consideration. Many, but not all, of the points raised by
Saltgrass in its first amended omnibus motion in limine are the same as those raised in its December
12, 2023, omnibus motions in limine.1 Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice the
motions in Saltgrass’s omnibus motions in limine (Dkt. No. 60). The Court rules only on those
points raised by Saltgrass in its first amended omnibus motion in limine (Dkt. No. 89). To the
extent Saltgrass persists in seeking a ruling from the Court on any of the issues raised in its omnibus
motions in limine, Saltgrass may renew its motion with the Court during the pretrial conference or
at trial, explaining to the Court why the issues Saltgrass purports to raise differ from those
addressed by this Court in its other rulings.
II.

Saltgrass’s First Amended Motion In Limine
A.

Claims Not In The Operative Complaint

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any evidence, reference, or testimony related to claims
or theories of claims of recovery not expressed in the operative complaint or raised in discovery

1

In informal communication to counsel for Saltgrass, with a copy to counsel for Plaintiffs,
the Court inquired whether Saltgrass required a ruling from the Court on those issues raised only
in the first amended omnibus motion in limine or whether it would like the Court to rule on both
omnibus motions in limine. Counsel for Saltgrass, without explanation or acknowledging the
overlap among issues raised in the motions, responded that it would like for the Court to rule on
both omnibus motions in limine. Based on the Court’s review of the record, Plaintiffs have only
responded to Saltgrass’s amended omnibus motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122).
2

(Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 1). Saltgrass requests that the Court prohibit Plaintiffs from arguing or offering
evidence as to any claim or theory of liability that they have not asserted in the operative complaint
including, but not limited to, “(1) negligent hiring, retention, training, or supervision, and (2)
whether [Saltgrass’s] agents conduct constitute a reckless disregard for the safety of Plaintiffs.”
(Dkt. No. 90, at 2). Saltgrass maintains that “there are no pending motions seeking a spoliation
instruction, and the operative Complaint does not present any claim that has a reckless disregard
standard” (Id.). Saltgrass argues that permitting Plaintiffs to argue new claims or theories of
liability would prejudice Saltgrass, confuse the jury, and obscure the issues being tried before the
jury (Id. at 2–3).
Plaintiffs oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine because it “seems to request the barring of
claims Plaintiffs have alleged from the start.” (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 1). Plaintiffs state that they have
raised claims of negligence, race discrimination, and conscious disregard when they filed their
complaint (Id.) Plaintiffs also assert that, while not a claim, spoliation or the withholding of
evidence is an issue in the case because Plaintiffs maintain that Saltgrass withheld relevant video
footage from the date of the incident and submitted evidence long after the discovery deadline in
this case (Id.). Plaintiffs state that they expand on their spoliation of evidence argument in their
motion for discovery sanctions (Id.).
The Court declines to make the blanket ruling Saltgrass seeks. Instead, Saltgrass may
renew its motion or make contemporaneous objections to exclude specific witnesses, anticipated
testimony, and documents at trial, and, after hearing from Plaintiffs in response, the Court will
issue specific rulings.

3

B.

Spoliation Of Evidence

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any evidence, reference, testimony, or argument
related to the alleged spoliation of evidence (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 2). Particularly, Saltgrass seeks to
exclude any evidence that Keith Bayko refused to produce a video to Officer Kenneth Baker of
the Little Rock Police Department (“LRPD”) (Dkt. No. 90, at 3). Saltgrass contends that Officer
Baker inquired about a video during his investigation. According to Saltgrass, Mr. Bayko stated
that, if Officer Baker wanted the video, to please let him know, but Officer Baker did not make
any further requests for the video footage according to Saltgrass (Id.). Saltgrass maintains that
Plaintiffs did not file any motions during the discovery period seeking a spoliation instruction and
have not filed any motions to date concerning spoliation (Id.). According to Saltgrass, it has
produced all videos of the incident and even all videos of the exterior areas of the restaurant (Id.,
at 4). Saltgrass argues that it will be prejudiced if Plaintiffs are permitted to argue or offer a new
claim or theory of liability or relief (Id.).
Plaintiffs oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 2). Plaintiffs assert that it
has asked the Court to exclude all untimely video belatedly produced by Saltgrass and has
submitted to the Court Arkansas Model Jury Instruction 106 and 106A which pertain to adverse
inference instructions (Id.). Plaintiffs state that in related motion practice they have requested a
hearing on matters related to what they refer to as the missing Saltgrass video and what Plaintiffs
assert was the withholding of the video during an investigation (Id.). Plaintiffs assert that they
presented a preservation letter to Saltgrass’s parent company on July 7, 2020 (Id. (citing Dkt. No.
122-2)). In response, Saltgrass’s counsel represented that Saltgrass only had in its possession two
cell phone videos (Id.). Plaintiffs contend that it is reasonable to infer that the missing video and
untimely discovery production are unfavorable to Saltgrass (Id.). Plaintiffs assert that they have

4

made reference to the missing video and the inference raised by its absence in a prior motion (Id.,
¶ 2 (citing Dkt. No. 92, at 8)). Further, Plaintiffs allege that, in that motion, they have asked the
Court to bar all untimely video (Id. (citing Dkt. No. 92, at 10–11)).
The Court takes this matter under advisement, will hear from the parties during the pretrial
conference with regard to these issues, and will make its ruling on this motion separately (Dkt. No.
89, ¶ 2). While this matter is under advisement, all parties, their counsel, and their witnesses are
directed to approach the bench before offering any testimony, evidence, or argument on alleged
missing videos or spoliation of evidence.
C.

Retaliation Claims

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any reference, testimony, or argument related to
alleged retaliation against Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs have not asserted a retaliation claim (Dkt.
No. 89, ¶ 3).
Plaintiffs respond that they do not oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine as phrased (Dkt.
No. 122, ¶ 3).
The Court grants Saltgrass’s motion in limine without objection and prohibits Plaintiffs
from offering evidence, testimony, or argument on a purported claim or theory of liability based
on retaliation (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 3).
D.

Mischaracterizing Stated Law, Governmental Orders, Directives, And
Regulations

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any evidence, testimony, or argument
mischaracterizing stated law, governmental orders, directives, and regulations (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 4).
Saltgrass seeks an instruction from the Court prohibiting Plaintiffs, their counsel, and witnesses
from “mischaracterizing” the State of Arkansas’s Directive on Resuming Restaurant Dine-in
Operations as “having ‘requirement[s]’ or ‘rules’ that were ‘mandatory’” (Dkt. No. 90, at 5).
5

Plaintiffs oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 4). Plaintiffs assert that a
June 19, 2020, memorandum from Landry’s Inc. acknowledges the need for adherence to
executive orders (Id.).
The Court denies Saltgrass’s motion in limine and declines to make the blanket ruling
Saltgrass seeks. Instead, Saltgrass may renew its motion or make contemporaneous objections to
exclude specific witnesses, anticipated testimony, and documents, and, after hearing from
Plaintiffs in response, the Court will issue specific rulings.
E.

Witnesses Not Identified In Discovery

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any witnesses not identified in discovery (Dkt. No.
89, ¶ 5). Saltgrass argues that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), Plaintiffs are
limited to calling to testify at trial those witnesses whom Plaintiffs identified in their responses to
interrogatories and their initial disclosures (Dkt. No. 90, at 6–7). Saltgrass asserts that it is
prejudiced by the nondisclosure of other witnesses because the discovery period has ended with
trial set to begin (Id., at 7).
Plaintiffs oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 5). Plaintiffs agree that
Saltgrass should be precluded from calling any witness who Saltgrass disclosed for the first time
after the Court’s first discovery deadline of August 18, 2023 (Id.). Plaintiffs argue, however, that
Plaintiffs should be permitted to call any of those witnesses at trial, if they choose to do so, because
Plaintiffs have suffered unfair prejudice due to Saltgrass’s discovery abuses and specifically
Saltgrass’s practice of untimely disclosure of scores of witnesses, leaving insufficient time for
Plaintiffs to examine those individuals during the discovery period (Id.).
The Court denies Saltgrass’s motion in limine and declines to make the blanket ruling
Saltgrass seeks (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 5). To the extent either party objects to a witness being listed as a

6

potential witness or called to the stand by the opposing party, a contemporaneous objection should
be lodged to permit the Court to rule on that potential witness.
F.

Witness Testimony Of Keith Bayko

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any witness testimony of Keith Bayko (Dkt. No. 89,
¶ 6). Saltgrass contends that Mr. Bayko is not disclosed in either Plaintiffs’ initial disclosures or
Plaintiffs’ November 14, 2023, supplemental disclosures (Dkt. No. 90, at 7). Saltgrass asserts
that Plaintiffs are requesting that Mr. Bayko testify via video during the trial of this matter (Id.,
at 7). Saltgrass maintains that Mr. Bayko is beyond the subpoena power of this Court and should
be excluded because Plaintiffs offer no explanation for their nondisclosure of Mr. Bayko as a
potential witness (Id., at 7–8). Additionally, Saltgrass asserts that Mr. Bayko is counsel in this
matter and that his acts and communications are within the ambit of attorney-client privilege and
work product doctrines (Id., at 8).
Plaintiffs oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 6). Plaintiffs contend that
Mr. Bayko has relevant information because Mr. Bayko possessed a video recording of the
incident recorded by Saltgrass (Id.). Plaintiffs state that, if the Court provides an adverse
instruction, the need to call Mr. Bayko at trial would be obviated (Id.).
The Court takes this matter under advisement, will hear from the parties during the pretrial
conference with regard to these issues, and will make its ruling on this motion separately (Dkt. No.
89, ¶ 6). While this matter is under advisement, all parties, their counsel, and their witnesses are
directed to approach the bench before offering any testimony, evidence, or argument regarding
Mr. Bayko, his alleged knowledge or involvement, and any alleged missing videos or spoliation
of evidence.

7

G.

Documentary Evidence Not Exchanged In This Case

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any documentary evidence not exchanged in this case
(Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 7). Saltgrass contends documentary evidence not exchanged during discovery is
inadmissible under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f), 26(e), 37(d) (Dkt. No. 90, at 8).
Specifically, Saltgrass maintains that, despite specific requests during discovery, Plaintiffs have
failed to provide Plaintiffs’ medical expenses and related documents, Plaintiffs’ expert’s resume,
documents that form the basis of the expert’s opinion, and other documents provided to the expert
for review, and all documents and communications relating to Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries including
documents from Dr. Khalid Rayaz, Dr. William Rutledge, Dr. Muhammad Y. Sha’jeet, Easy
Relax, and The Joint (Id., at 9).
Plaintiffs respond that they do not oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 7).
The Court grants the motion in limine without objection (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 7).
H.

Evidence Of Personal Injuries, Pain, And Emotional Distress

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude evidence of personal injuries, pain, emotional distress,
or any other evidence because Saltgrass asserts that Plaintiffs have not produced any medical
records in support thereof (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 8). Saltgrass contends that Plaintiffs failed to disclose
the calculation of their damages for claimed personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress in their
initial discloses and failed to supplement their disclosures in a timely manner pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 26 (Dkt. No. 90, at 10). Saltgrass also argues that Plaintiffs failed to
disclose damages with evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (Id.). Saltgrass asserts
that Plaintiffs offer no explanation for their non-disclosure and that Saltgrass is prejudiced by it
because the discovery period has ended with trial set to begin (Id.).

8

Plaintiffs oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 8). Plaintiffs state that Ms.
Hooks has testified to medical injuries, pain and suffering, medical bills, and permanency (Id.).
Plaintiffs state that they have testified to humiliation, mental anguish, and pain and suffering (Id.).
Further, Plaintiffs assert that Ms. Hooks will testify to lost profits that she sustained as a result of
the incident (Id.).
The Court denies Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 8).
I.

Evidence About Which Michael Cima Has No Factual Knowledge

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude evidence regarding matters about which Saltgrass
asserts proposed witness Michael Cima of the Arkansas Department of Health has no factual
knowledge because Plaintiffs purport to use him to speak about legal duties during COVID, and
Saltgrass argues that this Court is the sole instructor pertaining to the law (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 9).
Saltgrass argues that the testimony of Mr. Cima should be excluded as irrelevant under Federal
Rule of Evidence 602 because Mr. Cima was not present at the restaurant on June 27, 2020, during
the events giving rise to this litigation and because Saltgrass maintains that Mr. Cima has no
personal knowledge concerning the events that took place there (Dkt. No. 90, at 11). Saltgrass
also argues that the Court should preclude any testimony from Mr. Cima regarding the law during
the COVID pandemic because the Court is the sole instructor of the law (Id.).
Plaintiffs oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 9). Plaintiffs contend that
Mr. Cima is not being called as a percipient witness, but his testimony will establish that Phase 2
regulations applied to Arkansas restaurants like Saltgrass on June 27, 2020 (Id.). Plaintiffs
maintain that they attempted to stipulate to the facts that they intend to elicit from Mr. Cima, but
Saltgrass refused (Id.).

9

The Court takes Saltgrass’s motion in limine under advisement (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 9). The
Court will hear from the parties during the pretrial conference with regard to these issues and with
regard to Plaintiffs’ motion in limine for judicial notice of COVID-19 adjudicative facts (Dkt. No.
109), and the Court will make its ruling on this motion separately (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 9).
J.

Inflammatory News Reporting

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any reference to inflammatory news reporting related
to this action or related actions (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 10). Saltgrass argues that the Court should exclude
newspaper articles as inadmissible hearsay (Dkt. No. 90, at 12). Further, Saltgrass contends that
news reporting that incorporates the use of inflammatory material would be more prejudicial than
probative and should be excluded (Id.). Saltgrass seeks to exclude in limine any news reporting
related to the June 27, 2020, incident. Saltgrass also asserts that newspaper articles that
sensationalize similar fights over COVID-19 precautions would distract and confuse the jury, and
Saltgrass seeks to exclude any news reporting concerning fights related to COVID-19, mask
wearing, and other COVID-19 precautions (Dkt. No. 90, at 9).
Plaintiffs oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 10). Plaintiffs argue that
Mellisa Velasco acknowledged at her deposition an awareness of a trend in national media in June
2020 of reports describing guests of business establishments who refused to comply with COVID
regulations (Id.). Plaintiffs assert that this acknowledgement by Ms. Velasco, and Ms. Velasco’s
concern that she might be a victim of backlash when trying to implement COVID regulations, is
evidence relating to foreseeability (Id.). Plaintiffs acknowledge, however, that they “do not intend
to introduce the [newspaper] articles proper, as evidence.” (Id.).

10

The Court denies Saltgrass’s motion in limine and declines to make the blanket ruling
Saltgrass seeks (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 10). The Court will rule on contemporaneous objections to this
evidence, testimony, and argument at trial.
K.

Evidence Referencing The Size, Status, Reputation Of Squire Patton
Boggs (US), LLP And Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC

Saltgrass moves to exclude in limine reference to the size, status, and reputation of Squire
Patton Boggs (US), LLP and Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC; the Out-Of-State Residence of
Squire Patton Boggs (US), LLP; and the In-State Residence of Plaintiffs’ Counsel (Dkt. No. 89, ¶
11). Saltgrass contends that information regarding the size, status, or reputation of defense
counsel, and where the firms are located, is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rules of
Evidence 401 and 402 (Dkt. No. 90, at 13).
Plaintiffs oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine arguing that Plaintiffs believe that the Court
is obligated to state the names and addresses of all counsel of record to assure that no juror is
inappropriately familiar with counsel (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 11). The Court understands Plaintiffs’
position to be that, aside from those references made by the Court, Plaintiffs do not intend to elicit
any such testimony or make such argument of the type Saltgrass seeks to exclude (Id.).
The motion in limine is granted (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 11), with the exception that the Court will
question the voir dire panel regarding their familiarity with the law firms and lawyers involved in
the case.
L.

Evidence Referencing the Size, Wealth, Or Financial Resources Of The
Parties

Saltgrass moves to exclude in limine reference to the size, wealth, or financial resources of
the parties (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 12). Saltgrass argues that information regarding the size or financial

11

resources of the parties, and the relative wealth or resources of the parties, is not relevant to any
material fact in dispute in this case under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (Dkt. No. 90, at 13).
Plaintiffs oppose the motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 12). Plaintiffs assert that Saltgrass’s
financial worth is relevant to assessing punitive damages (Id.).
The Court finds evidence related to Saltgrass’s size, wealth, or financial resources is
relevant to punitive damages and that its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. See
Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. The Court denies Saltgrass’s motion to exclude in limine any
references to its size, wealth, or financial resources and declines to make the blanket ruling
Saltgrass seeks (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 12). The Court will rule on contemporaneous objections to this
evidence, testimony, and argument at trial.
M.

Impact On Family Members

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any evidence, argument, reference, or testimony
related to impact on, or alleged stress to, Plaintiffs’ family members (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 13). Saltgrass
maintains that this evidence is not relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 because it does
not prove or disprove any disputed fact of consequence at trial but is only intended to appeal to the
emotions of jurors or to confuse or distract jurors (Dkt. No. 90, at 14).
Plaintiffs respond that, to the extent they understand the motion, they do not oppose the
motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 13). Plaintiffs understand they may not testify to any stress
experienced by other individuals (Id.).
The Court grants the motion in limine (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 13). To the extent that either party
requires clarification of the scope of the motion in limine or this Court’s ruling on it, that party
should approach the bench and seek clarification before offering any testimony, evidence, or
argument regarding impact on, or alleged stress to, Plaintiffs’ family members.

12

N.

Evidence Related To “Punishing” Saltgrass

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any evidence, reference, argument, or testimony
related to “punishing” Saltgrass or that Saltgrass is a “bad” corporate citizen, “big” company, “puts
profits over people,” or similar arguments (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 14). According to Saltgrass, it
anticipates that Plaintiffs may seek to enter evidence or proffer argument that Saltgrass should be
“punished in this case” and to make other emotional appeals to the jury (Dkt. No. 90, at 14–15).
Saltgrass seeks to prohibit Plaintiffs’ counsel from using what it contends are emotional pleas that
the jury is the “conscience of the community” and that the jury should “send a message” in order
to protect people from a similar outcome (Id., at 15). Additionally, Saltgrass seeks to prohibit
Plaintiffs from suggesting that its management cares about making “as much money as possible”
and “prioritizes profits over people” (Id.).
Plaintiffs oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 14). Plaintiffs assert that,
because punitive damages are available in this case, Plaintiffs should be allowed to argue that
Saltgrass should be punished for its willful and wanton conduct and its conscious disregard for
Plaintiffs’ health and safety (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 14).
The Court denies Saltgrass’s motion in limine and declines to make the blanket ruling
Saltgrass seeks (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 14). The Court finds that punitive damages are an issue in this
case. The Court will rule on contemporaneous objections to this evidence, testimony, and
argument at trial.
O.

Any Legal Theory That Saltgrass Owed Plaintiffs The Duty To Break
Up The Altercation Or To Intercede On Plaintiffs’ Behalf

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any legal theory or suggestion that Saltgrass owed
Plaintiffs the duty to break up the altercation or intercede in the altercation on Plaintiffs’ behalf
(Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 15). Defendants contend that Plaintiffs present no factual dispute concerning the
13

unforeseeable nature of the physical altercation that occurred at the restaurant on June 27, 2020,
and that, therefore, Saltgrass had no duty to break up or intercede in the altercation which was
unforeseeable (Dkt. No. 90, at 10).
Plaintiffs respond that they are confused by Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶
15). Plaintiffs assert that they do not allege a specific duty to intercede in the middle of the physical
altercation (Id.).
The Court denies Saltgrass’s motion in limine and declines to make the blanket ruling
Saltgrass seeks (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 15). The Court will rule on contemporaneous objections to this
evidence, testimony, and argument at trial.
P.

Reference To “Safety Rules”

Saltgrass moves in limine to preclude suggestions that Saltgrass owed Plaintiffs the duty
owed to invitees and reference to safety rules (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 16). Saltgrass states that it anticipates
that Plaintiffs may reference “safety rules” and argue that Saltgrass violated these rules as set forth
in the book Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution (Dkt. No. 90, at 16). Saltgrass
contends that any probative value of references to “safety rules” is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and the potential to mislead the jury, and the
Court should exclude all references to the Reptile or “safety rules” at trial (Id., at 17). Saltgrass
argues that references to the safety rules are improper and highly prejudicial (Id.). In support of
this motion, Saltgrass takes the position that, “[a]t the time of the physical fight, Plaintiffs were
considered trespassers.” (Id.).
Plaintiffs respond that they are confused by Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶
16). Plaintiffs’ counsel states that he has never read nor spoken to a jury about the book referenced
by Saltgrass in its motion (Id.). Plaintiffs state that they intend to reference internal safety rules to

14

which Saltgrass employees and guests were subject, and the jury is entitled to receive information
about these safety rules in their fact-finding role (Id.).
The Court grants, in part, and denies, in part, Saltgrass’s motion in limine; the Court grants
the motion only as it relates to references to “safety rules” as set forth in the book Reptile: The
2009 Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution (Dkt. No. 90, at 16). The Court denies the remainder
of Saltgrass’s motion in limine and declines to make the blanket ruling Saltgrass seeks (Dkt. No.
89, ¶ 16). The Court will rule on contemporaneous objections to this evidence, testimony, and
argument at trial.
Q.

Evidence Suggesting Jurors “Trade Places” With Plaintiffs

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any evidence or argument suggesting the jurors “trade
places” with Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 17). Saltgrass contends that so called “golden rule”
arguments are improper because they ask jurors to put themselves in the shoes of Plaintiffs (Dkt.
No. 90, at 17–18).
Plaintiffs respond that they do not oppose the motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 17).
The Court grants Saltgrass’s motion in limine on the “golden rule” without objection (Dkt.
No. 89, ¶ 17). Neither Plaintiffs nor Saltgrass may make any improper “golden rule” arguments.
Lovett ex rel. Lovett v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 201 F.3d 1074, 1083 (8th Cir. 2000).
R.

Evidence Regarding Discovery Disputes, Court-Related Rulings,
Litigation, And Lawyering

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any evidence, argument, reference, or testimony
regarding discovery disputes, court-related rulings, and how the litigation and lawyering was
handled (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 18). Saltgrass asserts that any reference to Court-related rulings, discovery
disputes, or how litigation and lawyering were handled is irrelevant and prejudicial (Dkt. No. 90,
at 18). Further, Saltgrass argues that such matters are wholly irrelevant to any issues in this case,
15

unfairly prejudicial, and threaten to mislead and confuse the jury under Federal Rules of Evidence
401, 402, and 403 (Id.).
Plaintiffs respond that they are confused by Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 122, ¶
18). Plaintiffs argue that, to the extent that Saltgrass refers to Plaintiffs’ allegations that Saltgrass
engaged in discovery abuses and spoliation of evidence and the Court agrees, Plaintiffs defer to
the Court about how to communicate these findings to the jury (Id.).
The Court takes this matter under advisement, will hear from the parties during the pretrial
conference with regard to these issues, and will make its ruling on this motion separately (Dkt. No.
89, ¶ 18). While this matter is under advisement, all parties, their counsel, and their witnesses are
directed to approach the bench before offering any testimony, evidence, or argument on discovery
disputes, court-related rulings, and how the litigation and lawyering was handled, including but
not limited to allegations that counsel have, or either party has, engaged in discovery abuses and
spoliation of evidence.
S.

Evidence Referencing Other Third-Party Claims Or Lawsuits

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any evidence, testimony, reference, or argument
referencing other third-party claims or lawsuits against Saltgrass (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 19). Saltgrass
argues that such evidence is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and threatens to mislead and confuse
the jury under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 404(b) (Dkt. No. 90, at 19).
The Court understands that Plaintiffs do not oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine because
they do not intend to introduce such evidence (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 19). If the Court’s understanding
is incorrect, Plaintiffs should inform the Court of their position on this motion at the pretrial
conference and seek reconsideration of the Court’s ruling, if necessary.
The Court grants the motion in limine without objection (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 19).

16

T.

Exclusion Of Witnesses

Saltgrass moves in limine for the exclusion of all witnesses, with the exception of the
parties, from the courtroom prior to giving testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 615
(Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 20).
Plaintiffs respond that they do not oppose Saltgrass’s motion in limine and join the motion
pending identification of the individual who will represent Saltgrass at trial (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 20).
To the extent Saltgrass seeks to exclude all witnesses except expert witnesses, the parties,
or an employee or officer that has been designated as the party’s representative by its attorney
under Federal Rule of Evidence 615(a)(1)-(2), the Court grants the motion in limine without
objection (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 20).
The Court directs Saltgrass to identify to Plaintiffs in writing prior to the start of trial on
Monday, May 13, 2024, Saltgrass’s corporate representative.
U.

Criminal Records Of Witnesses

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude evidence, testimony, reference, or argument
referencing any criminal record of witnesses Ms. Velasco and Ronald McGranahan (Dkt. No. 89,
¶ 21).
Plaintiffs respond that they do not oppose Saltgrass’ motion in limine provided that the
same ruling goes for all parties to this action as previously discussed with Saltgrass’s counsel (Dkt.
No. 122, ¶ 21).
The Court grants Saltgrass’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 21).
The Court excludes in limine as to all parties any evidence, testimony, and argument
regarding the criminal record of any witness in this matter, including but not limited to arrests and
convictions. The Court directs the parties to Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609, along with

17

Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 404. All parties, their counsel, and their witnesses
are directed to approach the bench before offering any testimony, evidence, or argument on the
criminal record of any witness in this matter, including but not limited to arrests and convictions.
V.

Introduction Of Exhibits Into Evidence

Saltgrass moves to preclude the parties from introducing any evidence as exhibits without
tendering them to the Court to determine their relevance and admissibility (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 22).
Plaintiffs respond that they are confused by Saltgrass’s motion in limine, and therefore
oppose the motion (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 22).
The Court denies Saltgrass’s motion in limine and declines to make the blanket ruling
Saltgrass seeks (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 22). As a general matter, this Court requires that all exhibits be
admitted into evidence before being shown to the jury, including but not limited to exhibits that
may be used in opening statement and closing argument. The Court will rule on contemporaneous
objections to exhibits, evidence, testimony, and argument at trial.
W.

Comments About Payment Of The Judgment

Saltgrass moves in limine to exclude any comment to the jury about who pays the judgment,
whether it is ever paid, or similar words to that effect under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402,
and 403 (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 23).
Plaintiffs respond that they are confused by Saltgrass’s motion in limine “outside a
municipal defendant setting” and, therefore, oppose the motion (Dkt. No. 122, ¶ 23).
The Court takes this motion under advisement (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 22). The Court will hear
from the parties during the pretrial conference with regard to these issues and will make its ruling
at that time (Dkt. No. 89, ¶ 23). While this matter is under advisement, all parties, their counsel,

18

and their witnesses are directed to approach the bench before offering any testimony, evidence, or
argument on who pays the judgment.
III.

Plaintiffs’ General Motions In Limine

Plaintiffs timely filed their general motions in limine nos. 1–14 on April 22, 2024 (Dkt.
No. 91). On April 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed revised motions in limine nos. 3, 5–6, 8–10, and 12
(Dkt. No. 101). In their revised motions in limine, Plaintiffs add argument in support of their
motions in limine (Dkt. No. 101). Defendants respond to Plaintiffs’ general motions in limine and
revised motions in limine (Dkt. No. 108).
Before addressing the individual motions in limine, Defendants argue that certain of
Plaintiffs’ motions in limine should be denied as unsupported, that the Court should reject
Plaintiffs’ revised motions in limine, and that the Court should deny Plaintiffs “threadbare and
undeveloped” motions in limine (Dkt. No. 108, at 2–4). In ruling on Plaintiffs’ general motions in
limine as revised, the Court has considered these general arguments raised by Saltgrass in its
introduction to its response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motions in limine (Dkt. No. 108, at 1–4).
A.

Exclusions Of Witnesses From The Courtroom

Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude all non-damages witnesses from the courtroom except
during their own testimony and thereafter under Federal Rule of Evidence 615 (Dkt. No. 91, ¶ 1).
Saltgrass does not oppose the motion except as to parties or an employee or officer that has been
designated as the party’s representative by its attorney under Federal Rule of Evidence 615(a)(1)(2) (Dkt. No. 108, at 4).
To the extent Plaintiffs seek to exclude all witnesses except expert witnesses, the parties,
or an employee or officer that has been designated as the party’s representative by its attorney

19

under Federal Rule of Evidence 615(a)(1)-(2), the Court grants the motion in limine without
objection (Dkt. No. 91, ¶ 1).
The Court directs Saltgrass to identify to Plaintiffs in writing prior to the start of trial on
Monday, May 13, 2024, Saltgrass’s corporate representative.
B.

Impact On Individual Defendant’s Personal Finances Or Family

Plaintiffs move the Court to order that none of the individual defendants seek to imply that
they will be personally harmed by any judgment rendered against them or that their family will be
harmed by any such judgment or that a negative ruling would impact their career or lifestyle (Dkt.
No. 91, ¶ 2).
Saltgrass opposes the motion in limine arguing that there are no individual defendants in
this case (Dkt. No. 108, at 4).
The Court understands that Saltgrass maintains a counterclaim against Plaintiffs as
individual defendants. At this time, the Court takes this motion under advisement (Dkt. No. 91, ¶
2). The Court will hear from the parties during the pretrial conference with regard to these issues
and will make its ruling at that time. While this matter is under advisement, all parties, their
counsel, and their witnesses are directed to approach the bench before offering any testimony,
evidence, or argument regarding whether individual defendants will be personally harmed by any
judgment rendered against them or that their family will be harmed by any such judgment or that
a negative ruling would impact their career or lifestyle.
C.

Possible Prior Arrests Of Roy Richards Jr. And Any Prior Criminal
History

Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude any reference, mention, evidence, or argument
regarding any possible prior arrest of Roy Richards Jr. and any prior criminal history (Dkt. No. 91,
¶ 3). In their revised motion in limine Plaintiffs move to exclude any reference, mention, evidence,
20

or argument regarding any possible prior arrests and criminal history of the parties and parties’
agents (Dkt. No. 101, ¶ 3). Plaintiffs assert prior arrests and criminal history are irrelevant and
overly prejudicial and prohibited by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (Id.).
Saltgrass responds that there is no party or witness in this matter bearing the name Roy
Richards Jr. (Dkt. No. 108, at 5). Saltgrass opposes the revised motion in limine because it is not
“revised” but seeks blanket exclusion of prior arrests and criminal history for parties and their
agents (Id.). Finally, Saltgrass argues that the motion in limine is overbroad, and a relevance
determination should be made based on the particular facts (Id.).
The Court grants the motion in limine as to all parties as set forth above (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 3;
89, ¶ 21; 122, ¶ 21). The Court excludes in limine as to all parties any evidence, testimony, and
argument regarding the criminal record of any witness in this matter, including but not limited to
arrests and convictions. The Court directs the parties to Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609,
along with Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 404. All parties, their counsel, and their
witnesses are directed to approach the bench before offering any testimony, evidence, or argument
on the criminal record of any witness in this matter, including but not limited to arrests and
convictions. The Court understands the reference by Plaintiffs as to Roy Richards Jr. to be a
scrivener’s error (Dkt. No. 91, ¶ 3).
D.

Dismissal Of Defamation Claim

Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude any reference, mention, evidence, or argument
regarding the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ defamation claim (Dkt. No. 91, ¶ 4). Plaintiffs assert that the
fact that the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ defamation claim is irrelevant, prejudicial, and misleading
and Saltgrass should be barred from raising this irrelevant fact in front of the jury (Id.).

21

Saltgrass responds that Plaintiffs do not cite any authority to support its position, and
therefore the Court should deny the motion (Dkt. No. 108, at 6).
The Court determines that the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ defamation claim is irrelevant and
could be confusing to the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. The Court grants Plaintiffs’
motion in limine (Dkt. No. 91, ¶ 4).
E.

Use Of The Word “Lied”

Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude any reference, mention, evidence, or argument
regarding Ms. Hooks’s colloquial testimony that Mr. Jackson “lied” (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 5; 101, ¶ 5).
Plaintiffs seek to preclude Saltgrass from “exploiting” Ms. Hooks’s deposition testimony when
she is alleged to have colloquially used the word “lied” to paint Mr. Jackson as untruthful when,
in fact, she meant that his account of the events differed slightly from hers (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 5; 101;
¶ 5). Plaintiffs assert that, taken in context, what Ms. Hooks testified to is a disagreement regarding
their accounts of their work history together (Dkt. No. 101, ¶ 5). Plaintiffs seek to prevent Saltgrass
from “exploiting this testimony unfairly” to attack Mr. Jackson’s character (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 5; 101,
¶ 5).
Saltgrass responds that the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion in limine because Plaintiffs
do not cite to any authority to support their position (Dkt. No. 108, at 6). Saltgrass also argues that
the relief requested seeks to usurp the jury’s role as a finder of fact and as a judge of credibility
(Id.). Saltgrass denies any assertion that it could or would manipulate the written or spoken
testimony of any witness (Id., at 7).
At this time, the Court takes this motion under advisement (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 5; 101, ¶ 5).
The Court will hear from the parties during the pretrial conference with regard to these issues and
will make its ruling at that time. While this matter is under advisement, all parties, their counsel,

22

and their witnesses are directed to approach the bench before offering any testimony, evidence, or
argument regarding Ms. Hooks’s use of the word “lied” in regard to Mr. Jackson.
F.

Complaint Against Little Rock Police Department And Prior Lawsuit
Against The City Of Little Rock

Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude any reference, mention, evidence, or argument
regarding Ms. Hooks’s citizen’s complaint against the LRPD or prior lawsuits against the City of
Little Rock (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 6; 101, ¶ 6). Ms. Hooks filed a citizen’s complaint against LRPD for
its handling of the investigation of the incident (Id.). Plaintiffs assert that Ms. Hooks’s complaint,
as well as the investigation file, should be excluded from the jury because the material is irrelevant,
misleading, and prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (Id.). Plaintiffs argue that, under
Eighth Circuit law, subsequent internal affairs investigations are generally deemed irrelevant and
inadmissible because official reviews occurring subsequent to an incident cannot be a factor which
causes or contributes to the incident (Dkt. No. 101, at 3 (citing Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d
1197, 1205 (8th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiffs also assert that a lawsuit Ms. Hooks filed against the City
of Little Rock based on an independent contractor demolition agreement is irrelevant to issues in
the instant litigation and would only mislead and confuse the jury (Dkt. Nos. 91, at 6; 101, at 6).
Saltgrass responds that Plaintiffs’ motion in limine requests that this Court make a
premature relevance determination concerning Ms. Hooks’s prior lawsuits and complaints against
the LRPD and the City of Little Rock and that the Court is required to balance probative value of
such evidence against its prejudicial effect under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (Dkt. No. 108, at
7). Saltgrass requests that the Court reserve ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion in limine until the context
of the evidence is presented at trial (Id.).
At this time, the Court takes this motion under advisement (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 6; 101, ¶ 6).
The Court will hear from the parties during the pretrial conference with regard to these issues and
23

will make its ruling at that time. While this matter is under advisement, all parties, their counsel,
and their witnesses are directed to approach the bench before offering any testimony, evidence, or
argument regarding Ms. Hooks’s citizen’s complaint against the LRPD or prior lawsuits against
the City of Little Rock.
G.

GoFundMe Account And Health Insurance Coverage

Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude any reference, mention, evidence, or argument
regarding Ms. Hooks’s GoFundMe account and any health insurance coverage that she had (Dkt.
No. 91, ¶ 7; 101, ¶ 7). Plaintiffs state that Ms. Hooks has produced evidence of financial loss in
the form of medical bills relating to the incident which she paid, and the bills reflect amounts
reduced by her medical insurance carrier (Id.). Plaintiffs maintain that payments made by a third
party constitute a collateral source which does not go before a jury due to confusion and fairness
considerations (Id.). Plaintiffs argue that the same is true for the funds from Ms. Hooks’s
GoFundMe account, although Ms. Hooks returned the money collected (Id.).

Plaintiffs

additionally argue that evidence regarding the GoFundMe Account would confuse the jury and is
irrelevant (Id.).
Saltgrass requests that the Court reserve ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion in limine because there
are four instances in which a collateral source of recovery may be introduced and because Saltgrass
asserts that the motion requests that the Court make a premature relevance determination (Dkt. No.
108, at 8). Saltgrass further argues that, pursuant to Ms. Hooks’s deposition, the GoFundMe funds
were raised to retain an attorney and not for any damages. Therefore, Saltgrass requests that the
Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion with regard to any collateral source and reserve ruling in the context
of the evidence presented at trial (Dkt. No. 108, at 9). Saltgrass requests that the Court reserve
ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion in limine until the context of the evidence is presented at trial (Id.).

24

The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion in limine (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 7; 101, ¶ 7). The Court
recognizes that Arkansas courts have recognized four limited exceptions to the collateral source
rule. See Evans v. Wilson, 650 S.W.2d 569 (Ark. 1983); Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Kilgore, 148
S.W.3d 754 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004)). If evidence within the limited exceptions to the collateral
source rule becomes relevant at trial, parties are directed to approach the bench before introducing
or eliciting such evidence, testimony, or argument. The Court determines that evidence regarding
Ms. Hooks’s GoFundMe account, which she represents she returned, is irrelevant and could
possibly confuse the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. Accordingly, the Court also grants
Plaintiffs’ motion in limine regarding Ms. Hooks’s GoFundMe account (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 7; 101, ¶
7).
H.

Saltgrass’s Claim Of Damages

Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude any reference, motion, evidence, or argument
regarding any Saltgrass claim of damages exceeding the cost of a 16-ounce glass and salad (Dkt.
No. 91, ¶ 8; 101, ¶ 8). Plaintiffs state that, in its initial and supplemental disclosures, Saltgrass
stated that it had not yet calculated its damages, and the only questions asked of Plaintiffs at their
depositions concerned a broken glass and an unpaid salad (Id.). In Plaintiffs’ revised motions in
limine, Plaintiffs state that Saltgrass’s manager, Mr. McGranahan, testified at his deposition that
he had “no idea” the amount of damages claimed by Saltgrass and had “no clue” how many guests
were in the restaurant at the time of the incident (Dkt. No. 101, ¶ 8). Plaintiffs argue that in the
light of this testimony, “along with [Saltgrass’s] well-documented discovery abuses,” the Court
should bar Saltgrass from introducing any evidence on damages it suffered beyond a broken glass
and salad (Id.).

25

Saltgrass responds that the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion because they failed to cite
to any authority to support it (Dkt. No. 108, at 9). Saltgrass also argues that the relief requested
seeks to usurp the jury’s role (Id., at 9–10). Finally, Saltgrass maintains that any failure to disclose
damages on the part of Saltgrass is justified or harmless pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(c)(1) because Saltgrass asserts in its interrogatory response that the incident caused
customers to leave the restaurant without paying for their meals (Id., at 10).
The Court denies the motion in limine and declines to make the blanket ruling Plaintiffs
seek without understanding more about the context of this dispute and the anticipated testimony,
evidence, and argument (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 8; 101, 8). Plaintiffs may renew their motion as to specific
anticipated testimony, evidence, and argument, and, after hearing from Saltgrass in response, the
Court will issue specific rulings.
I.

Saltgrass’s Belief That Any Member Of The Group Was Armed

Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude any reference, mention, evidence, or argument
regarding Saltgrass’s belief that any member of the group was armed (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 9; 101, ¶ 9).
Plaintiffs state that, during Ms. Hooks’s depositions, Saltgrass’s counsel suggested that a reason
that the staff did not intervene to protect Plaintiffs is that a member of the group could have had a
gun or knife (Dkt. No. 101, at 4). Plaintiffs maintain that this is irrelevant speculation and that, if
this is a thought that crossed the mind of Saltgrass’s staff during the incident, it makes the conduct
attributable to Saltgrass more egregious and the disregard attributable to Saltgrass clearly
conscious (Id.). Plaintiffs seeks to have such comments barred.
Saltgrass responds that the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion in limine because they do
not cite to any authority, because they do not cite any record evidence supporting a belief by
Saltgrass that any member of the group was armed, because the motion is premised on speculation,

26

and because the motion calls for a premature relevance determination (Dkt. No. 108, at 10).
Saltgrass requests that the Court reserve ruling on Plaintiff’s motion in limine in the context of the
evidence presented at trial (Id., at 11).
The Court grants the motion in limine (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 9; 101, ¶ 9). The parties all seem
to agree that this line of questioning is speculative, based on the record evidence. If admissible
evidence moves, or is anticipated to move, this line of questioning beyond speculation at trial,
parties are directed to approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence, testimony,
or argument regarding a belief that any member of the group was armed.
J.

Prior Fight Or Altercation At The Bar

Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude any reference, mention, evidence, or argument
regarding any prior fight or altercation at a bar (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 10; 101, ¶ 10). Plaintiffs argue
that, at Mr. Jackson’s deposition, Saltgrass’s counsel “attempted to associate [Mr. Jackson] with
hooliganism and/or tried to establish that violence is somehow commonplace in his world.” (Dkt.
No. 101, at 5).
Saltgrass responds that the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion in limine because it is
threadbare and undeveloped, and Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority to support it (Dkt. No. 108,
at 11). Saltgrass also argues that Plaintiffs’ motion in limine seeks to usurp the jury’s role as finder
of fact and judge of credibility and asks the Court to make a premature relevance determination
(Id.). Saltgrass requests that the Court reserve ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion in limine in the context
of the evidence presented at trial (Id.).
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion in limine (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 10; 101, ¶ 10). The parties
all seem to agree that this line of questioning is speculative, based on the record evidence. If
admissible evidence moves, or is anticipated to move, this line of questioning beyond speculation

27

at trial, parties are directed to approach the bench before introducing or eliciting such evidence,
testimony, or argument regarding any prior fight or altercation at a bar.
K.

Arrest In Texas And Any Criminal Or Traffic Convictions

Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude any reference, mention, evidence, or argument
regarding an arrest in Texas and/or any criminal or traffic convictions (Dkt. No. 91, ¶ 11).
Saltgrass responds that the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion in limine because Plaintiffs
do not cite any authority to support the motion (Dkt. No. 108, at 12).
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion in limine (Dkt. No. 91, ¶ 11). The Court excludes in
limine as to all parties any evidence, testimony, and argument regarding the criminal record of any
witness in this matter, including but not limited to arrests and convictions. The Court directs the
parties to Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609, along with Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402,
403, and 404. All parties, their counsel, and their witnesses are directed to approach the bench
before offering any testimony, evidence, or argument on the criminal record of any witness in this
matter, including but not limited to arrests and convictions.
L.

Inappropriate Comments By Saltgrass’s Counsel

Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude any reference, mention, evidence, or argument
regarding inappropriate comments by Saltgrass’s counsel (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 12; 101, ¶ 12). Plaintiffs
contend that, during Ms. Hooks’s deposition, counsel for Saltgrass made inappropriate comments
which were sexist, condescending, and unduly stereotypical (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 12; 101, ¶ 12).
Plaintiffs state that they are willing to give counsel the benefit of the doubt that counsel may have
believed he was being “charming or humorous,” but Plaintiffs found the suggestions improper and
inappropriate (Dkt. No. 101, ¶ 12). Plaintiffs assert that such comments could “lead a callous
juror(s) to agree with such comments which would jeopardize the integrity of [the] trial.” (Id.).

28

Plaintiffs urge that all counsel should be barred from making any such comments or suggestions
withing the presence of the jury (Id.).
Saltgrass responds that the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion in limine because Plaintiffs
do not cite to any authority to support it and should deny Plaintiffs’ revised motion in limine
because it is untimely (Dkt. No. 108, at 12).
The Court takes Plaintiffs’ motion in limine under advisement (Dkt. Nos. 91, ¶ 12; 101, ¶
12). The Court will hear from the parties during the pretrial conference with regard to these issues
and will make its ruling on this motion. As a general matter, the Court expects the parties and
counsel for the parties to be respectful, civil, and act appropriately.
M.

Leading Questions

Plaintiffs move in limine under Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c) for the Court to permit
Plaintiffs’ counsel to ask leading questions of Mr. McGranahan and Ms. Velasco, who were
supervisory staff at Saltgrass on June 27, 2020 (Dkt. No. 91, ¶ 13). Saltgrass responds that it
agrees to comply with all of the Federal Rules of Evidence, but it denies Plaintiffs’ characterization
of Federal Rule of Evidence 611.
The Court takes this motion under advisement (Dkt. No. 91, ¶ 13). The Court understands
Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to seek this Court’s permission to ask leading questions of witnesses
Plaintiffs anticipate will be hostile witnesses, given their current or past employment with
Saltgrass. The Court desires to hear more about the status of Mr. McGranahan and Ms. Velasco
within Saltgrass before ruling and will address this motion with counsel at the pretrial conference.
N.

Submission Of An Adverse Instruction Against Saltgrass

Plaintiffs move in limine for an adverse instruction against Saltgrass pursuant to Arkansas
Model Jury Instructions 106 and 106A (Dkt. No. 91, ¶ 14). The Court takes this matter under

29

advisement, will hear from the parties during the pretrial conference with regard to these issues,
and will make its ruling on this motion separately. While this matter is under advisement, all
parties, their counsel, and their witnesses are directed to approach the bench before offering any
testimony, evidence, or argument on alleged missing videos, spoliation of evidence, or an adverse
inference.
It is so ordered this 12th day of May, 2024.

Kristine G. Baker
Chief United States District Judge

30