HARRIS v. TAYLOR COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Filing 58

ORDER ON THE MOTIONS ADDRESSED AT THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE - DENIED 49 Defendants motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for equitable relief; GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART 43 Defendant's MOTION in Limine to ex clude statements made after the plaintiff's termination on November 7,2011; DENIED 24 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment; GRANTED 42 Defendant's MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Threatening Behavior by Student� 39;s Parent; DENIED 46 Plaintiff's MOTION in Limine to exclude Testimony Related to the Murder of Plaintiff's Boyfriend; DENIED 39 Defendant's MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Argument About Economic Damages; GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART 36 Defendant's MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Affidavit; GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART 37 Defendant's MOTION in Limine to exclude evidence of racial discrimination; GRANTED 38 Defendant's MOTION in Limine to exclude opinions of lay witnesses. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/18/2014. (dlt)

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KIM L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 4:13cv171-RH/CAS

TAYLOR COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ON THE MOTIONS ADDRESSED
AT THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

For the reasons set out on the record of the pretrial conference on March 13,
2014,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The defendant’s summary-judgment motion, ECF No. 24, is DENIED.
2. The defendant’s motion, ECF No. 36, to strike the plaintiff’s own
affidavit is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. These parts of the
affidavit are struck: statements that are contrary to the plaintiff’s unequivocal

Case No. 4:13cv171-RH/CAS

Page 2 of 4

deposition testimony; statements not shown to be based on personal knowledge;
and statements that set out only inadmissible conclusions or opinions.
3. The defendant’s motion, ECF No. 37, to exclude evidence of racial
discrimination is GRANTED AND PART and DENIED IN PART. Evidence of
racial discrimination may be admitted to show a good-faith basis for the plaintiff’s
alleged assertion on November 7, 2011, that the defendant had engaged in racial
discrimination. Unless authorized on a request made outside the jury’s hearing,
these must not be mentioned in the jury’s hearing or suggested to the jury in any
way: racial discrimination that was not known to and relied on by the plaintiff at
the time of the November 7 assertion.
4. The defendant’s motion, ECF No. 38, to exclude opinions of lay
witnesses is GRANTED. Lay witnesses may give admissible testimony on what
they saw and heard. They may not give opinions or draw conclusions on such
things as whether what they saw and heard constituted racial discrimination.
5. The defendant’s motion, ECF No. 39, to exclude evidence of economic
damages is DENIED. The plaintiff may introduce admissible evidence of lost
earnings consistent with the plaintiff’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)
damages disclosures.
6. The defendant’s motion, ECF No. 42, to exclude evidence of the dispute
involving students Devera Eakins and Amy Dice and Ms. Dice’s mother is

Case No. 4:13cv171-RH/CAS

Page 3 of 4

GRANTED. Unless authorized on a request made outside the jury’s hearing, these
must not be mentioned in the jury’s hearing or suggested to the jury in any way:
the dispute involving Ms. Eakins, Ms. Dice, and Ms. Dice’s mother.
7. The defendant’s motion, ECF No. 43, to exclude statements made after
the plaintiff’s termination on November 7, 2011, is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. Statements made after the termination are not excluded for
that reason alone. But unless authorized on a request made outside the jury’s
hearing, these must not be mentioned in the jury’s hearing or suggested to the jury
in any way: that James Brannon made comments along the lines that Deborah
Little’s word was close to God’s or that students’ words didn’t measure up to Ms.
Little’s. This does not prevent introduction of evidence that after the termination,
Mr. Brannon asked Shaneka Royal whether the plaintiff threatened Ms. Little.
8. The plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 46, to exclude evidence of the plaintiff’s
boyfriend’s murder is DENIED. But unless authorized on a request made outside
the jury’s hearing, these must not be mentioned in the jury’s hearing or suggested
to the jury in any way: that the plaintiff was suspected of being involved with or
implicated in any way in her boyfriend’s murder.
9. The defendant’s motion, ECF No. 49, to strike the plaintiff’s claims for
equitable relief is DENIED. A party who wishes to introduce evidence solely on
the issue of equitable relief must so state on the record promptly after the jury is

Case No. 4:13cv171-RH/CAS

Page 4 of 4

sent out to begin its deliberations; a party who does not do so waives the right to
introduce evidence that was not introduced during the jury trial.
SO ORDERED on March 18, 2014.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge

Case No. 4:13cv171-RH/CAS