Francois v. Gulf Cost Transportation, Inc.

Filing 90

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 84 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 7/11/2017. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ESTIME FRANCOIS and
RENETTE ORDEUS,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-1061-T-24 TBM

GULF COAST TRANSPORTATION,
INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine. (Doc. No. 84).
Defendant has filed a response to the motion. (Doc. No. 85). The Court addressed this motion at
the pretrial conference that was held on July 11, 2017.
Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence and argument relating to three topics: (1) Plaintiff
Francois’ prior criminal record; (2) Plaintiffs’ immigration status; and (3) the Agreement for
Independent Vehicle for Hire Operators (“the Driver Agreements”). As explained below, the
Court grants in part and denies in part this motion.
With respect to Plaintiff Francois’ prior criminal record, the only information about his
prior criminal record is that he pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge of trespassing. The
Court agrees that evidence and argument relating to the trespassing charge is prohibited by
Federal Rule of Evidence 609, because it does not involve a felony or a crime of dishonesty.
However, the Court does not know whether the trespassing charge makes up Francois’ entire
criminal record, and as such, the Court denies the motion to the extent that Francois has a
criminal record that includes an admissible felony or crime of dishonesty.

With respect to Plaintiffs’ immigration status, the Court agrees that such information is
irrelevant, unless Plaintiffs raise the issue themselves. As such, the motion in limine on this
issue is granted.
With respect to the Driver Agreements, the Court finds that they are highly relevant, and
there has been no showing that their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice or confusion. As such, the motion in limine on this issue is denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Doc.
No. 84) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth above.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 11th day of July, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

2