La-Kebbia Wilson et al v. City of Fresno, et al

Filing 77

ORDER on Defendant's Motions In Limine (Doc. 72 ), Signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/20/2012. (Arellano, S.)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LA-KEBBIA WILSON,

CASE NO. CV F 09-0887 LJO SMS

9
10

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN
LIMINE
(Doc. 72.)

Plaintiff,
vs.

11
CITY OF FRESNO,
12
Defendant.
13

/

14

This Court conducted a March 20, 2012 hearing on each motion in limine (“ML”) of defendant

15

City of Fresno (“City”). Plaintiff La-Kebbia Wilson (“plaintiff”) appeared by counsel Rayma Church.

16

The City appeared by counsel Joseph Rubin. For the reasons stated on the record, this Court:

17

1.

18
19

GRANTS ML No. 1 to require the parties to give 24-hour advance notice of witnesses
to be called;

2.

20

GRANTS ML No. 2 to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s good character, unless her
character for honesty and veracity is attacked;

21

3.

GRANTS ML No. 3 to preclude evidence as to the City’s insurance;

22

4.

GRANTS ML No. 4 to instruct the jury to ignore potential publicity as to this action;

23

5.

GRANTS ML No. 5 to preclude evidence as to other employment lawsuits, claims or

24

grievances against the City on the condition that the City refrains to offer evidence of an

25

absence of lawsuits, claims or grievances by other employees;

26

6.

27
28

GRANTS ML No. 6 to exclude evidence that the City violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 or
1983 or is liable for discrimination;

7.

GRANTS ML No. 7 to exclude evidence as to plaintiff’s December 22, 2010 evaluation
1

1
2

but DENIES ML No. 7 as to plaintiff’s vehicle assignments;
8.

3
4

DENIES ML No. 8 to the extent that the City’s actions or inactions evidence retaliation
even though individual actions or inactions are not adverse employment action;

9.

GRANTS ML No. 9 to preclude opinions as to discrimination, retaliation and harassment

5

but witnesses may testify as to their observations and counsel may argue that evidence

6

reflects retaliation;

7

10.

8
9

plaintiff’s damages on what the jury would accept to endure similar treatment;
11.

10
11

GRANTS ML No. 10 to preclude evidence or argument that the jury should base

GRANTS ML No. 11 to preclude evidence or argument as to plaintiff’s economic
damages;

12.

GRANTS ML No. 12 to preclude evidence of retaliation and damages arising prior to

12

July 18, 2007 except to the extent that such evidence is placed in context of plaintiff’s

13

permissible claims.

14

instruction;

15

13.

Upon request, this Court will issue an appropriate limiting

GRANTS ML No. 13 to preclude evidence of plaintiff’s high blood pressure,

16

complicated pregnancy and related medical conditions except that such evidence may be

17

used for rebuttal to the extent that the defense opens the door to such issues;

18

14.

GRANTS ML No. 14 to exclude evidence of settlement offers and discussions;

19

15.

GRANTS ML No. 15 to preclude Rachel Wilson’s testimony entirely and to preclude

20

Denard Fobbs’ testimony, except to the extent Denard Fobbs’ testimony serves was

21

rebuttal evidence;

22

16.

GRANTS ML No. 16 to preclude evidence or argument as to:

23

a.

Plaintiff being the only African-American in Code Enforcement;

24

b.

Other employees missing meetings and not being disciplined;

25

c.

Statements attributed to Alex Correa;

26

d.

Statements attributed to other employees as to plaintiff’s emotional status and

27
28

discipline;
e.

Stray remarks of non-decision makers and/or racial remarks plaintiff heard from
2

1

others;

2

f.

Opinions as to differences in counseling sessions or discipline; and

3

g.

Nazi salute from a coworker to coworker;

4

17.

5

GRANTS ML No. 17 to preclude plaintiff’s testimony that she was better qualified than
other applicants for promotions;

6

18.

7

GRANTS ML No. 18 to preclude evidence as to testing procedure for promotion to
senior neighborhood standards specialist; and

8

19.

9

GRANTS ML No. 19 to require plaintiff’s counsel to provide defense counsel outside
the jury’s presence an offer of proof as to similarity prior to attempting to introduce

10

comparative evidence.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:
66h44d

March 20, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3