Vargas v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
Filing
64
ORDER: Plaintiff Jesus Vargas's Motions in Limine (Doc. # 55 ) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/30/2017. (DMD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JESUS VARGAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.: 8:16-cv-1949-T-33JSS
MICHAELS STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
Plaintiff Jesus Vargas’s Motions in Limine (Doc. # 55), filed
on August 2, 2017. Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc., filed its
response on August 16, 2017. (Doc. # 61). For the reasons
that follow, the Motions are denied without prejudice.
I.
Legal Standard
“A
motion
in
limine
presents
a
pretrial
issue
of
admissibility of evidence that is likely to arise at trial,
and as such, the order, like any other interlocutory order,
remains subject to reconsideration by the court throughout
the trial.” In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., Nos. 6:06–
md–1769–Orl–22DAB, 6:07–cv–15733–Orl–22DAB, 2009 WL 260989,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2009). “The real purpose of a motion
in limine is to give the trial judge notice of the movant’s
1
position so as to avoid the introduction of damaging evidence
which may irretrievably effect the fairness of the trial.”
Id. (internal quotation omitted). “A court has the power to
exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly
inadmissible
on
all
potential
grounds.”
Id.
(internal
quotation omitted).
“A motion in limine is not the proper vehicle to resolve
substantive issues, to test issues of law, or to address or
narrow the issues to be tried.” LSQ Funding Grp. v. EDS Field
Servs., 879 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2012)(citing
Royal Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 07–80172–
CIV, 2008 WL 2323900, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 5, 2008)). “Denial
of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all
evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted at
trial.” In re Seroquel, 2009 WL 260989, at *1 (internal
quotation marks omitted). “Instead, denial of the motion
means the court cannot determine whether the evidence in
question should be excluded outside the trial context.” Id.
“The court will entertain objections on individual proffers
as they arise at trial, even though the proffer falls within
the scope of a denied motion in limine.” Id.
The district court has broad discretion to determine the
admissibility of evidence, and the appellate court will not
2
disturb
this
Court’s
judgment
absent
a
clear
abuse
of
discretion. United States v. McLean, 138 F.3d 1398, 1403 (11th
Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273,
1285 (11th Cir. 2003)(“Inherent in this standard is the firm
recognition that there are difficult evidentiary rulings that
turn on matters uniquely within the purview of the district
court, which has first-hand access to documentary evidence
and is physically proximate to testifying witnesses and the
jury.”).
II.
Analysis
Rule 401, Federal Rules of Evidence, defines “relevant
evidence”
as
“evidence
existence
of
any
fact
having
that
any
is
tendency
of
to
make
the
to
the
consequence
determination of the action more probable or less probable
than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401.
Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. All
relevant evidence is admissible unless “its probative value
is
substantially
outweighed
by
the
danger
of
unfair
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury,
or by considerations of
undue delay, waste of time, or
needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid.
402, 403; United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1524 (11th
Cir. 1994). Use of Rule 403 to exclude relevant evidence is
3
an “extraordinary remedy” whose “major function . . . is
limited to excluding matter of scant or cumulative probative
force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial
effect.” United States v. Grant, 256 F.3d 1146, 1155 (11th
Cir. 2001).
Vargas now seeks an order in limine barring Michaels
from presenting three types of evidence. (Doc. # 55). The
Court will address each type in turn.
1.
Vargas’s 2010 Performance Evaluation
Vargas seeks to exclude a 2010 performance evaluation
from when he was a Michaels store manager in New York. (Doc.
# 55 at 2). In the evaluation, Vargas’s then-supervisor,
District Manager Lynnette Jones, commented “Jesus sometimes
gets short tempered with staff when they are not on the same
page as he is or if they push back on his direction. Jesus
must work on his negotiation skills with his entire staff to
maximize their performance.” (Doc. # 49-1 at 6). Vargas
asserts the evaluation “has no probative value and will
unfairly prejudice a jury against [him]” because Jones never
disciplined or counseled Vargas for any conduct related to
the evaluation and the evaluation occurred in New York before
Vargas’s transfer to Tampa. (Doc. # 55 at 2).
4
But Michaels argues the evaluation is directly relevant
and not unfairly prejudicial because Vargas “relies heavily
on the argument that [he] was never disciplined by his prior
managers, which, allegedly, indicates Zenn’s discriminatory
animus.” (Doc. # 61 at 2). “[Vargas’s] 2010 performance
evaluation evidences that [] the behavior Zenn witnessed and
ultimately
disciplined
[Vargas]
for
in
2013
began
years
earlier and was observed by previous management.” (Id.).
Therefore, Michaels reasons, the evaluation “is relevant for
the jury to consider in its determination of whether causation
exists, as it is directly related to Michaels’[s] theory of
the case and is necessary to rebut [Vargas’s] argument.”
(Id.).
The Court agrees with Michaels that the performance
evaluation
is
relevant
because
it
bears
on
Vargas’s
interaction style with his staff. Indeed, the performance
evaluation tends to rebut Vargas’s assertions that he never
had
any
disciplinary
issues
before
Zenn
became
his
supervisor. Although the performance evaluation was not a
disciplinary action and was issued before the transfer to
Tampa,
it
shows
that
the
behavior
Vargas’s
employees
complained of in the Dale Mabry store was not unprecedented.
Therefore, the performance evaluation supports Michaels’s
5
contention that its decision to discipline and ultimately
terminate Vargas was not motivated by discrimination. And the
Court cannot determine at this juncture whether the probative
value of the evaluation is outweighed by the risk of undue
prejudice
or
misleading
the
jury.
Accordingly,
Vargas’s
Motion is denied without prejudice as to the 2010 performance
evaluation. But Vargas may raise more specific objections at
trial.
2.
Anonymous Hotline Calls
Next, Vargas seeks to exclude any evidence concerning
four
anonymous
calls
made
to
Michaels’s
human
resources
hotline about Vargas’s treatment of his employees. (Doc. # 55
at 3). He notes that the identities of the callers are unknown
and so the callers cannot be cross-examined. Additionally, he
stresses that the stated reason for his termination was a
different complaint of alleged retaliation — not the specific
complaints made in the hotline calls. (Id.). Vargas argues
“the hotline calls have no probative value and will result in
[] unfair prejudice to [Vargas].” (Id.).
The Court disagrees. As Michaels points out, “these
complaints were part of Michaels[’s] good faith basis for the
decisions it made, and thus are necessary to support its
defense regardless of whether the complaints are true.” (Doc.
6
# 61 at 3). Michaels terminated Vargas because it believed
Vargas was attempting to find out who complained about him
for the sake of retaliation — not because of the content of
the hotline complaints. Still, the hotline complaints about
Vargas are relevant to the case’s narrative and support
Michaels’s stated reason for terminating him. The fact that
numerous complaints were made about Vargas’s treatment of
employees
believed
is
probative
Vargas
would
of
whether
retaliate
Michaels
reasonably
his
employees.
against
Indeed, one of the anonymous callers stated he or she feared
retaliation because Vargas “has retaliated before.” (Doc. #
55-1 at 1).
Furthermore, the prejudice to Vargas does not outweigh
the probative value of the hotline calls such as to warrant
their categorical exclusion at this juncture. It is true the
identities of the callers have not been determined and so the
callers cannot be cross-examined. But Michaels’s employees
who received or knew of the calls, such as Vargas’s supervisor
Zenn,
can
be
questioned
about
whether
the
calls
were
investigated or how the calls influenced their treatment of
Vargas. And, while the hotline complaints would be hearsay if
used to prove that Vargas did the things described in the
complaints, it would not be hearsay for Michaels to use them
7
to show that complaints were made to it about Vargas. Cf.
Peshlakai
v.
Ruiz,
39
F.
Supp.
3d
1264,
1338
(D.N.M.
2014)(“Although the evidence about the complaints would be
hearsay, if the Court allowed the jury to consider the
evidence for its truth, see Fed. R. Evid. 801, the Court
concludes that it may allow the jury to consider the evidence
for the purpose of notice.”).
Accordingly, Vargas’s Motion to exclude the anonymous
hotline calls is denied without prejudice. Vargas may make
more specific objections regarding the anonymous calls at
trial.
3.
Store Tours
Vargas
purporting
argues
to
the
informally
four
“store
audit
the
tour”
Dale
documents,
Mabry
store’s
performance during Vargas’s tenure as store manager, should
be
excluded
because
they
have
“no
probative
value,
prejudice[] [Vargas] and will confuse and mislead the jury.”
(Doc. # 55 at 4). Vargas notes that more than four store tours
likely took place, but Michaels only produced four — three of
which are undated, and all of which indicate unfavorable
scores. (Id.). And because Vargas was terminated for alleged
retaliation rather than the store tour grades, Vargas argues
8
the store tour documents are irrelevant and will mislead the
jury. (Id.).
But
relevant
Michaels
argues
and
unfairly
not
the
store
tour
prejudicial.
documents
First,
are
Michaels
emphasizes that the reason only four store tour documents
were produced was because those were the only store tour
records in its possession. (Doc. # 61 at 6). And, according
to Michaels, the store tours are “probative evidence showing
that Zenn tried to prepare [Vargas] and the Dale Mabry store
for
an
impending
audit
—
which
directly
contradicts
[Vargas’s] allegations that Zenn did not support his store
because he was Hispanic.” (Id. at 6-7).
The Court agrees with Michaels. The store tour documents
are relevant to whether Zenn failed to support Vargas because
of his race and national origin
performing
as
store
manager
and whether Vargas was
satisfactorily,
as
Vargas
maintains. And the high probative value of these documents is
not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or jury
confusion
so
as
to
warrant
their
categorical
exclusion.
Therefore, the Motion is denied without prejudice but Vargas
may raise specific objections as needed at trial.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
9
Plaintiff Jesus Vargas’s Motions in Limine (Doc. # 55)
are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
30th day of August, 2017.
10
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?