Criswell v. Intellirisk Management Corporation, Inc. et al
Filing
97
OPINION AND ORDER that Defendants' Motion in Limine 93 is GRANTED with respect to the introduction of Other Litigation evidence in Plaintiff's case-in-chief, and opening or closing statements at trial. Plaintiff, however, may request to introduce Other Litigation evidence if evidence introduced after Plaintiffs case-in-chief supports a request to admit Other Litigation evidence. If Plaintiff intends to introduce Other Litigation evidence in rebuttal or to impeach, Plaintiff must provide notice to the Court of her intention to do so to permit the Court to consider the request outside the presence of the jury. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 4/1/2015. (anc)
against Defendants, which settled and is now dismissed1 and (2) regarding other
lawsuits that have been filed against Defendants in which the plaintiffs did not
allege any breach of contract claims (collectively the “Other Litigation”). (Motion
at 1). Defendants argue that the Other Litigation evidence is not relevant to this
action, is prejudicial, and that evidence regarding the settlement of Plaintiff’s Title
VII case is not admissible pursuant to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Response [94], stating that she does
not intend to introduce the Other Litigation evidence at trial. Plaintiff seeks to
reserve the right to use Other Litigation evidence in rebuttal if Defendants present
evidence or argument that would cause the Other Litigation evidence to become
relevant and admissible.2 Plaintiff also asserts that she may seek to use pleadings,
deposition testimony, or other evidence from Defendants’ other cases, if the Court
allows it, to impeach defense witnesses.
The Other Litigation evidence will not be allowed without prior notice to
and approval of the Court. The Court accepts Plaintiff’s representation that she
will not introduce Other Litigation evidence in her case-in-chief. If Plaintiff
1
Criswell v. Intellirisk Management Corporation, Inc., et al, 05-cv-718
(N.D.Ga.). This case was dismissed with prejudice on July 23, 2014.
2
For example, Plaintiff argues that if Defendants claim that Plaintiff is overly
litigious, Plaintiff reserves the right to show that her earlier Title VII claim had
merit.
2
believes that evidence or testimony offered by Defendants make the Other
Litigation evidence relevant and admissible, she may request the Court to
determine, out of the presence of the jury, whether the Other Litigation evidence is
permitted to be introduced for impeachment or for any other purpose. The Court
cannot now determine whether such evidence will be relevant and, if relevant,
whether such evidence would be admitted after consideration of the factors
established by Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 403
(“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
presenting cumulative evidence.”). The Court can make this admissibility
determination only with the benefit of the evidence admitted at trial.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine [93] is
GRANTED with respect to the introduction of Other Litigation evidence in
Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, and opening or closing statements at trial. Plaintiff,
however, may request to introduce Other Litigation evidence if evidence
introduced after Plaintiff’s case-in-chief supports a request to admit Other
Litigation evidence. If Plaintiff intends to introduce Other Litigation evidence in
3
rebuttal or to impeach, Plaintiff must provide notice to the Court of her intention to
do so to permit the Court to consider the request outside the presence of the jury
SO ORDERED this 1st day of April, 2015.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?