Hatcher v. Cheng et al

Filing 167

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (Doc. 149 ) are hereby GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. Defendant's Motions in Limine (Doc. 150 ) are GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/4/2018. (bps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DR. LAURA J. HATCHER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SOUTHERN
ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-CV-407-SMY-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are the motions in limine filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 149) and
Defendant (Docs. 150).
The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule on the relevance and
admissibility of evidence before it is offered at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41,
n.4 (1984)(“although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in
limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent
authority to manage the course of trials”). It serves to “aid the trial process by enabling the
court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues
that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.”
Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562, 566 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136,
141 (2nd Cir. 1996).
Motions in limine also may save the parties time, effort, and cost in preparing and
presenting their cases.

Pivot Point Intern., Inc. v. Charlene Products, Inc., 932 F. Supp.

220, 222 (N.D. Ill. 1996). Often, however, the better practice is to wait until trial to rule on

objections, particularly when admissibility substantially depends upon facts which may be
developed there.

Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th

Cir. 1997).
The movant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is inadmissible on any
relevant ground, “for any purpose.” Plair v. E.J. Brach & Sons, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 67, 69
(N.D. Ill. 1994).

The court may deny a motion in limine when it “lacks the necessary

specificity with respect to the evidence to be excluded.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
Pittsburgh v. L.E. Myers Co. Group, 937 F. Supp. 276, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Moreover,
the court may alter an in limine ruling based on developments at trial or sound judicial
discretion. Luce, 469 U.S. at 41. “Denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all
evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted at trial.”

Hawthorne Partners v.

AT&T Tech., Inc., 831 F. Supp.1398, 1401 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Denial only means that the court
cannot decide admissibility outside the context of trial. Plair, 864 F. Supp. at 69.
A court may reserve judgment until trial, so that the motion in limine is placed “in an
appropriate factual context.” Nat'l Union, 937 F. Supp. at 287. Stated another way, motion
in limine rulings are “subject to change when the case unfolds” at trial. Luce, 469 U.S. at
41. Indeed, “even if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the district judge is free, in the exercise
of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling.” Id. The Court should exclude
evidence on a motion in limine “only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all
potential grounds.” Jonasson, 115 F.3d at 440.
With these principles in mind, the Court rules as follows.

2

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine:
•

Plaintiff’s Motion in limine No. 1 – Plaintiff moves to exclude any argument or the
presentation of any evidence that Chancellor Cheng’s decision to reverse the decision of
the Judicial Review Board which unanimously recommended that plaintiff be granted
both tenure and promotion is entitled to institutional deference. The motion is
GRANTED and Defendant is prohibited from making any argument or suggesting by
insinuation or innuendo that Cheng’s decision is entitled to any deference.

•

Plaintiff’s Motion in limine No. 2 – Plaintiff moves to exclude any argument concerning
the presentation of the contents of the Judicial Review Board’s written findings and
recommendations for the grievance appeal of Professor Jarlen Don or Chancellor
Cheng’s reasons therefor. The motion is taken under advisement.

•

Plaintiff’s Motion in limine No. 3 – Plaintiff moves to exclude any argument or the
presentation of any evidence regarding the procedural history of plaintiff’s application for
tenure and promotion other than the material that Chancellor Cheng reviewed before
reversing the unanimous decision of the Judicial Review Board. The motion is DENIED
subject to appropriate objections at trial. Defendant shall notify the Court before seeking
to introduce any evidence pertaining to the procedural history.

Defendant’s Motions in Limine:
•

Defendant’s Motion in limine No. 1 – Defendant moves to bar Plaintiff and any witnesses
called by Plaintiff from mentioning to the jury or introducing into evidence any matters
relating to Plaintiff’s claims that have been disposed of by prior Court orders, including
any claim that the University (or any administrator) discriminated against Plaintiff on the
basis of her gender, denied Plaintiff due process, or retaliated against Plaintiff on the
basis of activity protected under the First Amendment. The motion is DENIED as
vague.

•

Defendant’s Motion in limine No. 2 – Defendant moves to bar Plaintiff and any witnesses
called by Plaintiff from mentioning to the jury or introducing into evidence any matters
relating to information regarding the educational or employment experiences at the
University of persons other than Plaintiff. The motion is GRANTED without objection.

•

Defendant’s Motion in limine No. 3 – Defendant moves to bar Plaintiff and any witnesses
called by Plaintiff from mentioning to the jury or introducing into evidence any matters
relating to statements that Dr. Cheng was required to accept the recommendation of the
JRB to award Plaintiff tenure. The motion is taken under advisement.

•

Defendant’s Motion in limine No. 4 – Defendant moves to bar Plaintiffs and any
witnesses called by Plaintiff from mentioning to the jury or introducing into evidence any
matters relating to opinions about the alleged motives of University administrators. As
this case involves a claim for retaliation, the motion is DENIED.

3

•

Defendant’s Motion in limine No. 5 – Defendant moves to bar Plaintiffs and any
witnesses called by Plaintiff from mentioning to the jury or introducing into evidence any
matters relating to opinions of “experts” or other witnesses not identified by Plaintiff in
her Interrogatory Answers and Rule 26 Disclosures. The motion is DENIED as it relates
to Mr. Hoops.

•

Defendant’s Motion in limine No. 6 – Defendant moves to bar Plaintiffs and any
witnesses called by Plaintiff from mentioning to the jury or introducing into evidence any
matters relating to Plaintiff’s membership in a union, and the union’s grievances and
other efforts made on Plaintiff’s behalf. The motion is DENIED as vague.

•

Defendant’s Motion in limine No. 7 – Defendant moves to bar Plaintiffs and any
witnesses called by Plaintiff from mentioning to the jury or introducing into evidence any
matters relating to alleged emotional distress damages. The motion is DENIED.

•

Defendant’s Motion in limine No. 8 – Defendant moves to bar Plaintiffs and any
witnesses called by Plaintiff from mentioning to the jury or introducing into evidence any
matters relating to settlement discussions. The motion is GRANTED without objection.

•

Defendant’s Motion in limine No. 9 – Defendant moves to bar Plaintiffs and any
witnesses called by Plaintiff from mentioning to the jury or introducing into evidence any
matters relating to prior employment of Plaintiff’s counsel as a United States District
Judge and as in-house counsel for the University. The motion is GRANTED without
objection.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 4, 2018

s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

4