Hamilton v. Core-Mark International Inc

Filing 70

ORDER: Unopposed 61 Motion partly granted, partly denied, partly denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial, and with directions. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/7/2019. (jak)

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
TERRYW. HAMILTON

PLAINTIFF

No. 5:16-cv-356-DPM

v.

CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

DEFENDANT

ORDER

Hamilton has not responded to Core-Mark's motion in limine. His
time to do so has passed. The Court makes the following rulings.
Where the denial is without prejudice or directions, the Court is
declining to rule prematurely on an abstract question that may not
anse.
• Legal theories not pleaded

Denied without prejudice.
• Dismissed claims and evidence related to those claims

Granted on dismissed claims themselves, but otherwise denied without
prejudice and with directions.

Evidence that is relevant to both a

dismissed and a non-dismissed claim can be admitted for the purpose
of proving the non-dismissed claim. Hamilton must tread carefully
here, though.
• Hearsay evidence, including the use of racial slurs

Partly granted; partly denied. All hearsay is excluded. All racial slurs
by employees without hiring authority are excluded. But racial slurs

by Core-Mark folks with hiring authority in areas where Hamilton
worked or sought promotion are admissible.
• Evidence of sex-based discrimination relating to other
former employees

Granted.
• Wayne Brown

Partly granted; partly denied. No "me too" testimony. Brown may
testify only on the issues and areas identified by Hamilton in his
deposition. The limits specified in the Court's summary judgment
Order, NQ 52 at 2, apply.
• Unidentified witnesses

Denied without prejudice.
• Probable testimony of witness not on the stand

Denied without prejudice. But the Court discourages boot-strapping
by either side.
• Statements about Core-Mark not calling a witness

Denied without prejudice.
• References to Plaintiff as "victim"

Denied.
• Witnesses' belief about other witnesses' knowledge

Granted.

-2-

• Asking witnesses to speculate on whether behavior was race
discrimination or retaliation

Denied without prejudice. The Court will give a limiting instruction, if
requested and needed.
• Evidence that unidentified persons were discriminated
against and were too afraid to make claims

Denied without prejudice.
• Suggesting or accusing Core-Mark of hiding or withholding
discovery

Granted.
• Use of Core-Mark's initial or pretrial disclosures at trial

Denied without prejudice and with directions. Hamilton's lawyer must
get preclearance from the Court before using Core-Mark's disclosures
in front of the jury.
• Suggesting or alleging that Core-Mark, its employees, or its
counsel are racist or prejudiced

Partly granted; partly denied. The deposition exchange is excluded.
So is using any of these labels about Core-Mark's lawyers.

But

Hamilton can argue the proof about what Core-Mark employees
allegedly said and did. E.g., NQ 52 at 3.
• References to prior lawsuits against Core-Mark or Forrest
City Grocery

Granted.

-3-

• Medical damages testimony

Denied without prejudice.
• Statements about the financial condition of parties

Denied without prejudice and with directions. Hamilton must hold
proof about Core-Mark's financial information until the end of his case.
At that point, the Court will decide whether there is a jury question on
punitives. If there is, then the financial information will be admissible.
• References to settlement discussions

Granted.
• Argument about justice and right to recovery

Denied.
• Mention of Core-Mark's motion for summary judgment and
motion in limine or the Court's rulings

Granted.
• Request for pre-offer evidentiary rulings

Denied, except as specified.

*

*

*

Unopposed motion, NQ 61, partly granted, partly denied, partly
denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial, and
with directions.

-4-

So Ordered.
I

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-5-