Rivera et al v. Greffin et al

Filing 243

Opinion and Order: Defendant's motion 206 is granted in part and reserved in part. Plaintiffs' motion 207 is denied. Plaintiffs' motion 208 is reserved. Defendant's motion 210 is reserved. Defendant's motion 214 is granted. Plaintiff's motion 226 is granted. Signed by the Honorable William T. Hart on 2/9/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DANIEL RIVERA, STEPHEN
KENSINGER, DEBORAH JOY
MEACOCK, and REBECCA
SCHEUNEMAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 10 C 1733

OPINION AND ORDER
1. Defendant's motion (ECF 206) to Bar Hearsay Comments and
Rumors regarding plaintiffs' reputations is granted in part. Plaintiffs' may not
offer their own testimony as to what they were told others purportedly said about
their conduct or employment status. Plaintiffs' contention that they offer character
or reputation evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(21) is reserved.
2. Plaintiffs' motion (ECF 207) to preclude defendant from claiming or
proving the defense of privilege at trial is denied.
3. Plaintiffs' motion (ECF 208) to bar undisclosed witnesses is reserved.
4. Defendant's motion (ECF 210) to bar job search evidence not
revealed in discovery responses dated Feb. 14, 2011 and March 9, 2011 or at

plaintiffs' depositions is reserved for further consideration of whether any
omissions were substantially justified or harmless within the meaning of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
5. Defendant has moved (ECF 214) to exclude the opinion testimony of
Michael Ramer. Plaintiffs have moved to exclude the rebuttal testimony of James
Langenfeld (ECF 226). Ramer's "knockout theory" is not based on scientific or
technical data but rather on his experience as an employment recruiter. The
proposed testimony will not be helpful for the jury's understanding of the
evidence, invades the province of the jury, and is not based on demonstrably
reliable methods as required by Fed. R. Evid. 702. Kumho Tire Co. v.
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150-58 (1999). Since Ramer will not testify, there is
no need to have Langenfeld as a rebuttal witness, which is the primary argument
for Langenfeld's testimony. An insufficient basis is presented for otherwise
admitting Langenfeld's testimony. The motion to bar Langenfeld's testimony will
also be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion [206] is granted
in part and reserved in part. Plaintiffs' motion [207] is denied. Plaintiffs' motion

-2-

[208] is reserved. Defendant's motion [210] is reserved. Defendant's motion [214]
is granted. Plaintiff's motion [226] is granted.
ENTER:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: FEBRUARY 9, 2016

-3-