Navarette v. Madison County Sheriff's Office

Filing 87

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. 65 ) is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion in Limine (Doc. 67 ) is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and ruling is RESERVED in part. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 6/10/2021. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GUSTAVO NAVARRETE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MADISON COUNTY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-CV-347-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are the motions in limine filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 65) and
Defendant (Doc. 67).
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. 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). 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
Page 1 of 5

v. L.E. Myers Co. Group, 937 F. Supp. 276, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “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. 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.” Nat'l Union, 937 F.
Supp. at 287. With these principles in mind, the Court rules as follows:
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine (Doc. 65)
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1
Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference to disciplinary incidents other than the
disciplinary incidents that form the basis of Defendant’s decision to terminate his
employment. Defendant objects to the extent that it would operate as a total bar to the
introduction of any and all prior discipline that could become relevant at trial. The motion is
GRANTED to the extent that information regarding disciplinary incidents involving Plaintiff
other than those alleged to have formed the basis for the decision to terminate him are
irrelevant and immaterial.
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2
Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference or argument as to the results of the EEOC
investigation pertaining to him. The results of the EEOC investigation regarding Plaintiff’s
employment with Defendant are irrelevant and immaterial to the claims and defenses asserted
in this case. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 3 is GRANTED without objection.
Page 2 of 5

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 4 is GRANTED without objection.
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 5
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 5 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motions in Limine (Doc. 67)
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 1
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 1 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 2
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 2 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 3
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 3 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 4
Defendant seeks to exclude any testimony or documentation pertaining to Plaintiff’s
character or reputation. Plaintiff objects, arguing that his character is at issue because
Defendant alleges that he was terminated, in part, for violations of rules of conduct. Plaintiff’s
general character and reputation are not relevant. However, evidence of his character and
reputation that goes directly to the alleged violations of the rules of conduct is relevant.
Accordingly, this motion is DENIED.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 5
Defendant seeks to exclude any lay witness testimony regarding Plaintiff’s damages.
Plaintiff points out that his damages are based on simple math that do not require an expert.
Plaintiff can testify as to his past wages and benefits, his current wages and benefits, and the
difference (which is a calculation based on simple math) that he has knowledge of. However,
Page 3 of 5

expert testimony would be necessary for more complicated calculations such as interest, the
effect of inflation, and potential future earnings and benefits. Given the fact that the Court
will take up the issue of economic damages only after a verdict against Defendant on liability,
the Court RESERVES RULING on this motion.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 6
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 6 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 7
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 7 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 8
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 8 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 9
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 9 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 10
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 10 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 11
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 11 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 12
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 12 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motions in Limine 13 and 14
Defendant seeks to exclude testimony, remarks, or statements regarding disciplinary
actions as to other employees. Plaintiff objects, arguing that evidence of how similarly
situated employees were disciplined is relevant to his claim. The motions are GRANTED
except to the extent of evidence produced by Plaintiff to demonstrate that other similarly
Page 4 of 5

situated employees were treated differently, which is an element of Plaintiff’s claim.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 15
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 15 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 16
Defendant seeks to exclude information concerning Plaintiff’s service in the United
States Air Force.

General background information is relevant and not prejudicial.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 17
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 17 is GRANTED without objection.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine 18
Defendant seeks to exclude testimony and evidence that the Madison County State’s
Attorney’s decision to not file criminal charges against Plaintiff. As this evidence is relevant
to the issue of possible pretextual reasons for Plaintiff’s termination, the motion is DENIED.
The Court will instruct the jurors regarding the limited purpose for which the evidence may
be considered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 10, 2021

STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5