Martensen v. Koch
Filing
341
ORDER granting 252 Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Oxbow's Organizational Structure and Alleged Tax Violations. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/28/2015.(alowe)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02411-REB-CBS
KIRBY MARTENSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM KOCH, and
DOES 1-25,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WILLIAM I. KOCH’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OXBOW’S
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND ALLEGED TAX VIOLATIONS
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Defendant William I. Koch’s Motion In Limine To
Preclude Evidence of Oxbow’s Organizational Structure and Alleged Tax
Violations [#252],1 filed September 15, 2014. I grant the motion.
Defendant seeks to preclude plaintiff from presenting evidence relating to the tax
structure of plaintiff’s former employer, Oxbow Carbon & Minerals International GmbH
(“OCMI”), which plaintiff maintains was illegal.2 Plaintiff posits that such evidence is
relevant to demonstrate that defendant’s true motive for orchestrating the events that
1
“[#252]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
2
There also are at least two other Oxbow entities – Oxbow Carbon LLC and Oxbow Carbon &
Minerals, LLC. It is my understanding that plaintiff’s allegations of tax improprieties apply to OCMI and
not to these other corporate entities. Nevertheless, the analysis is the same regardless which of these
entities may be implicated by plaintiff’s allegations of tax improprieties.
give rise to plaintiff’s false imprisonment claim was to “intimidate and silence [him] as a
critic of the tax scheme.” (Plf. Resp. Br. at 4.) He also suggests that such evidence is
admissible under Rule 404(b) to prove motive or intent and/or under Rule 608(b) as
probative of defendant’s character for truthfulness.
None of these arguments is in the least convincing. Assuming arguendo that
defendant knew of plaintiff’s “whistleblower” claims prior to the date plaintiff’s
employment was terminated, his motive is not relevant to any element of plaintiff’s claim
for false imprisonment. See CJI-Civ. 4th 21:3 (2013) (defendant’s malice or ill will is
irrelevant to establish element requiring proof of defendant’s intent to restrict plaintiff’s
freedom of movement). Even if relevant to prove intent, evidence regarding the
structure or legality vel non of OCMI’s tax strategy would not be admissible under Rule
404(b) because those issues bear no resemblance whatsoever to the acts made the
basis of this suit. See United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135, 1144 (10th Cir. 2007)
(when admitted to show knowledge or intent, prior acts must be similar to charged
offense), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 2424 (2008). Nor does plaintiff adequately explain
how Rule 608(b) might be implicated here. While that rule allows the cross-examiner to
inquire into specific instances of conduct that go to the character for truthfulness of the
witness, it is not clear how the alleged transgressions of non-party OCMI bear on
defendant’s credibility.3
Nevertheless, to the extent such evidence might be thought to have some
minimal relevance to the issues before the jury or otherwise be admissible, whether for
3
Delving too far into the relationship between defendant and OCMI itself would create an
unnecessary and wholly collateral “mini-trial.”
2
impeachment or otherwise, allowing plaintiff to delve into the particulars of OCMI’s tax
structure would take this case much too far afield. This is a relatively straightforward
case presenting a single, largely uncomplicated, claim. The court has no intention of
conducting a separate trial within this trial on the largely (if not wholly) collateral issue of
the nature and legality of OCMI’s tax strategy.4 See Schneider v. City and County of
Denver, 47 Fed. Appx. 517, 529 (10th Cir. Aug. 22, 2002) (appellate court will “give wide
discretion to the avoidance of side issues and ‘minitrials’ by district courts”); United
States v. Talamante, 981 F.2d 1153, 1156 n.5 (10th Cir. 1992) (court retains discretion
under Rule 403 to exclude evidence which “could [lead] to collateral mini trials”), cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 1876 (1993). Patently, such evidence creates a substantial risk of
unnecessarily misleading the jury, confusing the issues, and unduly delaying the trial.
See FED. R. EVID. 403. These dangers substantially outweigh whatever marginal
probativity this evidence might have.5
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Defendant William I. Koch’s Motion In Limine To Preclude Evidence
of Oxbow’s Organizational Structure and Alleged Tax Violations [#252], filed
September 15, 2014, is GRANTED; and
4
Indeed, the court doubts that plaintiff would be required to prove that OCMI’s tax strategy was
illegal even if such evidence were admissible. Generally, whistleblowers are protected by law even when
their beliefs in the illegality of the challenged practices are mistaken. See, e.g., Love v. RE/MAX of
America, Inc., 738 F.2d 383, 385 (10th Cir. 1984); Rupp v. Purolator Courier Corp., 790 F.Supp. 1069,
1073 (D. Kan. 1992).
5
Of course, nothing in this order precludes plaintiff from offering testimony that he made such an
allegation or attempting to show that defendant knew of that charge prior to the termination of plaintiff’s
employment. It means only that the court will not entertain a full-scale excursion into the particulars of the
company’s tax structure or the legality of same.
3
2. That pending further order, all parties are PRECLUDED and PROHIBITED
from offering or discussing evidence in the presence of the jury to establish the
particulars of OCMI’s tax structure or strategy or to attempt to prove that the company’s
tax strategy was illegal.
Dated January 28, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
4
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?