Walden v. Flying Fish Bar & Grill, Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER denying 42 Motion to Introduce Evidence of Recent Arrest. Signed by District Judge J. Randal Hall on 1/3/2025. (kjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
*

RASHONDA WALDEN,

*

•k

Plaintiff,

*

*

V.

CV 423-201

*

FLYING FISH BAR & GRILL, INC.,

*
*

Defendant.

*
*

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant's motion to introduce evidence

of Plaintiff's November 25, 2024, arrest ("the arrest").

42.)

(Doc.

For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

In this case. Plaintiff alleges retaliation and racially
discriminatory

hostile

environment

claims

pursuant

to

42

U.S.C. § 1981 and arising out of her employment by Defendant in

April 2023.

(Doc. 1, at 1-6.)

Defendant seeks to introduce at

trial evidence that Plaintiff was arrested in the early hours of

November 25, 2024, after police officers responded to gunfire at
a residence ("the residence") in Savannah, Georgia.

2-3, 6.)
had

(Doc. 42, at

According to a police report offered by Defendant, police

visited

the

residence

for

a

domestic

dispute

involving

Plaintiff shortly

before the

Plaintiff was still at the

gunfire

residence

occurred.

(Id.

when

returned in

police

response to the gunfire.

(Id.)

denied hearing anything

when asked about the gunshot.

However, officers found

a

residence, and

a

On this return visit, Plaintiff

shell casing

(Id.)

at the doorway of the

neighbor informed officers she

had

witnessed

Plaintiff shoot a gun into the air outside the residence.
9.)

at 8.)

(Id. at

The police report also notes Plaintiff was intoxicated and

difficult to understand, refused verbal commands, and ^^actively
resist[ed]" detention.

(Id. at 8.)

Plaintiff was arrested and

charged with obstruction of a law enforcement officer pursuant to
O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24.

(Id. at 7.)

The police report states that

officers observed marijuana and a ballistic vest while conducting
a protective sweep of the residence, in which other individuals
were located.

(Id. at 9.)

Plaintiff is scheduled to appear in

court regarding the arrest on January 23, 2025.

(Doc. 43, at 3.)

II. STATEMENT OF LAW

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of a "crime,

wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person's character in

order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in
accordance

with

the

character."

Fed.

R. Evid.

404(b).

Such

evidence, however, may be admissible for other purposes, such as
to show motive, opportunity, intent, or preparation.

Id.

Courts in the Eleventh Circuit apply a three-factor test when

determining the admissibility of other crimes, wrongs, and acts
under Rule 404(b).

United States v. Brooks, 426 F. App'x 878, 881

(11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
First, the evidence must be relevant to an issue other
than the [person's] character. Second, as part of the
relevance analysis, there must be sufficient proof so
that a jury could find that the [person] committed the
extrinsic

act.

Third,

the

evidence

must

possess

probative value that is not substantially outweighed by
its undue prejudice, and the evidence must meet the other
requirements of Rule 403.^
United States v. Miller,

959 F.2d 1535, 1538

(citation and footnote omitted).

(11th

Cir. 1992)

Determining whether evidence is

more probative than prejudicial under the third factor involves a
^^common sense assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the

extrinsic offense, including . . . overall similarity between the

extrinsic act and
remoteness."

the [claims at issue], as

well as temporal

Brooks, 426 F. App'x at 881 (quotation omitted).

Ill. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that because Plaintiff has "no corroborating
evidence" to

support

her

claims,

the

jury "should

be

granted

insight into the Plaintiff s character as it is that character

^ Under Rule 403, "[t]he 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."
403.

Fed. R. Evid.

that will be on trial."

(Doc. 42, at 2.)

According to Defendant,

evidence of the arrest ^'shows that the Plaintiff has no problem

intending, preparing, and otherwise planning a false narrative to
suit her needs."

(Id. at 3.)

Defendant claims evidence of the

arrest will also demonstrate ""that the Plaintiff is not a truthful

persoh and . . . is also engaged in a dangerous activity such as
discharging a firearm in a neighborhood during a domestic dispute."
(Id.)

As such. Defendant contends the arrest is admissible under

Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b).

(Id.)

Plaintiff opposes, arguing that evidence of the arrest is not
sufficiently related to the circumstances of Plaintiff's claims to
render

it

admissible

under

Rule

404(b).

(Doc.

43,

at

3-4.)

Plaintiff points this Court to other discrimination cases in which
admissible

prior

act

evidence

involving '"prior

acts

of

discrimination

there

is

a

defendant,

when

challenged

adverse

action

has

been

congruence

and

the

limited

or
in

prior

to

contexts

retaliation
the

act,

nature
and

by

a

of

the

where

the

defendant's intent or past effort to remediate discrimination were
the ultimate issues in dispute."

(Id.)

Plaintiff also asserts

that even if Rule 404(b) permits introduction of the evidence, the
Court

should

nonetheless

exclude

the

evidence

under

Rule

403

because of the substantial likelihood it will prejudice, confuse,
and distract the jury.

(Id. at 4.)

The Court finds that evidence of the arrest is not admissible

to show Plaintiff's motive and intent to develop a false narrative
regarding the events at issue in this trial.

For the first factor

of the 404(b) test, the Court considers the relevance of the 404(b)

evidence to an issue other than person's character or propensity.

Miller, 959 F.2d at 1538.

Here, an allegation that Plaintiff lied

to a police officer does pertain to her credibility.

Thus, this

factor is satisfied.

The

second

factor

asks

whether

the

other

wrongs

can

be

established by evidence sufficient to support a jury finding by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant committed the
wrong. United States v. Green, 873 F.3d 846, 864 (11th Cir. 2017)
(^^To have Rule 404(b) prior act evidence admitted, the proponent
need only provide enough evidence for the trial court to be able
to conclude that the jury could find, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that the prior act had been proved.")

Here, a reasonable

jury could find that witness statements and a police report are
sufficient to determine Plaintiff committed the wrong.

The second

factor is therefore satisfied.

The third factor requires the Court to balance the evidence's

probative value against its potential for unfair prejudice and the
other Rule 403 considerations.

Miller, 959 F.2d at 1538.

Here,

the Court finds the events of the arrest are too distant in time

and distinct in circumstance from the events underlying this case

to

warrant

admission.

The

Rule

403 considerations

against admitting evidence of Plaintiff's arrest.

also

counsel

Specifically,

because Plaintiff has not been convicted of the obstruction charge,

introducing evidence of the arrest may compel rebuttal evidence,
"essentially

resulting

in

[a]

mini-trial[]" as to

culpability in the unrelated obstruction case.

Plaintiff's

Reed v. Beko Techs.

Corp., No. l:21-CV-03563-WMR, 2024 WL 4580412, at *2

June 3, 2024).

{N.D. Ga.

Such side-show would risk "confusing the issues at

trial and misleading the jury as to the specific facts of this
case."

Id.

The prejudicial nature of the facts surrounding the

arrest - gunfire, drugs, and domestic disputes - also substantially
weighs against admission.

Defendant has not satisfied the third

factor, and its motion is therefore DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

For

introduce

the

aforementioned

evidence

of

reasons.

Plaintiff's

Defendant's

arrest

(Doc.

DENIED.

42)

motion

is

to

hereby

^

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

liPtUday of January,

2025.

HONORABLE

J.

RANOAL HALL

UNITED ^TES DISTRICT JUDGE
•OOUTIIERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA