Albakri v. Sheriff of Orange County

Filing 45

ORDER denying 40 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 6/14/2017. (CHT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
WALEED ALBAKRI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:15-cv-1969-Orl-31GJK

SHERIFF OF ORANGE COUNTY,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to exclude, inter alia, the
introduction of evidence concerning the reason for Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff’s
employment. (Doc. 40.) Defendant responded to the motion (Doc. 42) and the Court heard
argument at the final pretrial conference held on June 12, 2017.
In October 2012, Plaintiff was arrested on charges that he had defrauded an insurance
company. Those charges were later dropped. However, the Sheriff instituted an internal
investigation and found that Plaintiff’s submission of a false insurance claim violated department
policy. (Def.’s Ex. 38.) As a consequence, Plaintiff was terminated effective April 1, 2014. (Def.’s
Ex. 41, 42.) By his motion, Plaintiff seeks to preclude Defendant from introducing this evidence at
trial.
Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) provides that extrinsic evidence probative of a witness’s
character for truthfulness may be elicited on cross-examination. Fraud is an act probative of
untruthfulness. Ad-Vantage Tel. Directory Consultants, Inc. v. GTE Directories Corp., 37 F.3d
1460, 1466 (11th Cir. 1994). In the exercise of its discretion, the Court must balance this evidence

with the limitations imposed by Federal Rule of Evidence 403 in order to avoid unfair prejudice.
Id.
Here, the merits of this dispute hinge on whether the jury believes the Plaintiff’s version of
the facts that allegedly created a hostile work environment. Accordingly, evidence of Plaintiff’s
insurance fraud is admissible on cross-examination as probative of his character for truthfulness.
In order to balance this evidence and avoid unfair prejudice under Rule 403, the Court will limit
the evidence elicited to include only the basic facts of Plaintiff’s arrest and termination and
Defendant’s exhibits 38, 41, and 42. 1
It is, therefore,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine is DENIED. 2
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on June 14, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

1

This evidence may also be admissible to impeach Plaintiff’s claim of emotional injury.

2

The Court also declines to bifurcate the trial or preclude Defendant’s witnesses from
appearing in uniform.

-2-