ROHLER v. ROLLS ROYCE CORPORATION

Filing 87

ENTRY - Ms. Rohler's Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 67) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. RRNA's Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 75) is GRANTED. If the parties wish to renew any arguments as the trial unfolds, they are free to approach the bench and do so. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/11/2014. *** SEE ORDER *** (CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

PAMELA SUE ROHLER also known as
PAMELA S. ROHLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROLLS-ROYCE NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-00040-TWP-DML

ENTRY
This matter is before the Court on the parties’, Pamela Sue Rohler (“Ms. Rohler”) and
Rolls-Royce North America, Inc. (“RRNA”), respective Motions in Limine. This action is set for
jury trial on August 8, 2014, and a Final Pretrial Conference on July 16, 2014. The Court makes
the following rulings on the Motions in Limine.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
The court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not
admissible for any purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp.
1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Unless evidence meets this exacting standard, evidentiary rulings
must be deferred until trial so questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice may be resolved
in context. Id. at 1400-01. Moreover, denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean
that all evidence contemplated by the motion is admissible; rather, it only means that, at the
pretrial stage, the Court is unable to determine whether the evidence should be excluded. Id. at
1401.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 67)
1. EEOC Determination
Ms. Rohler seeks exclusion of the EEOC’s determination of her retaliation charge. She
argues such evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. She
further argues that the determination has little probative value. RRNA objects to the extent that
Ms. Rohler agreed to stipulated facts concerning the dates Ms. Rohler’s charge was filed,
amended, and ultimately determined by the EEOC. The Court agrees with both parties. In
general, “administrative findings regarding claims of discrimination may be admitted under Rule
803(8)(C).” Young v. James Green Mgmt., Inc., 327 F.3d 616, 623 (7th Cir. 2003). The Court
retains “significant discretion as to whether such material ought to be admitted.” Id.
The parties have agreed and stipulated to the authenticity and admissibility of the
determination and dates contained within their Stipulation of Fact to which Ms. Rohler has not
objected. (Dkt. No. 70). The Court agrees this information is relevant and probative to the
issues. With respect to further evidence outside the stipulated facts, the Court does not currently
have enough information before it to make a ruling excluding any additional information and that
determination must be made at trial. Therefore, Ms. Rohler’s motion in limine regarding Ms.
Rohler’s November 12, 2008, EEOC determination DENIED.
2. Disciplinary Records, Performance Evaluations, and Testimony Regarding Said
Records
Ms. Rohler contends that her performance evaluations and disciplinary records are
irrelevant to the determination of retaliation. RRNA argues that Mr. Rohler agreed to stipulated
facts regarding her salary increases and bonuses, which were awarded based on performance

evaluations. RRNA further argues that such evidence is relevant because it supports its position
that it did not retaliate against Ms. Rohler, but awarded her. To the extent RRNA seeks to
introduce evidence consistent with the stipulated facts, the Court DENIES Ms. Rohler’s motion
in limine. At present, the Court can find no other relevant basis to allow evidence of Ms.
Rohler’s disciplinary records, performance evaluations, or testimony regarding such records.
Thus the motion in limine is GRANTED as to matters outside the scope of the stipulated facts.
B. RRNA’S Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 75)
1. Evidence of Claims of Discrimination not raised in Ms. Rohler’s Charge or
Complaint
RRNA seeks exclusion of evidence of any charge of discrimination not raised in her
EEOC charge or complaint to the Court. Ms. Rohler does not object, and the motion in limine is
GRANTED.
2. Opinions / Statements from Co-Workers about what Constitutes RRNA
Proprietary Information
RRNA seeks exclusion of testimony from Ms. Rohler’s former co-workers about whether
the documents attached to her Motion to Add contained proprietary information. It contends that
such testimony would lack personal knowledge of the decision-making process leading to Ms.
Rohler’s termination, is not competent evidence, and is irrelevant to Ms. Rohler’s claim against
RRNA. Ms. Rohler contends that such evidence is relevant to her subjective belief that her
actions were reasonable, and that she had contacted a co-worker for clarification regarding
proprietary information. The Court agrees with RRNA. The relevant determination is what the
decision-makers considered proprietary information and what Ms. Rohler believed. Testimony
from co-workers is not probative of Ms. Rohler’s retaliation claim. RRNA’s motion in limine is

GRANTED. If Ms. Rohler can establish relevancy and probative value at trial, the Court will
reconsider its ruling.
3. RRNA’s EEOC Position Statement
RRNA seeks to exclude references to or production of its EEOC position statement. Ms.
Rohler contends this evidence is relevant to show that RRNA had notice of her claim and goes
against RRNA’s affirmative defense that she did not exhaust her administrative remedies. This
issue has already been decided by the Court on summary judgment (Dkt. No. 52), and is not an
issue for trial.

Therefore, the evidence is irrelevant and RRNA’s motion in limine is

GRANTED.
4. Magistrate Judge LaRue’s Entry on Motion to Seal
RRNA seeks exclusion of Magistrate Judge LaRue’s ruling on RRNA’s motion to seal
the documents alleged to be confidential and proprietary as irrelevant. Ms. Rohler contends the
ruling is relevant and would support her argument that the information was not confidential and
proprietary. The Court agrees with RRNA. The legal standard applied by Magistrate Judge
LaRue in a motion in Ms. Rohler’s earlier case against RRNA is not relevant to the factual
determination to be made by the jury. It would be confusing and misleading to the jury if Ms.
Rohler used a magistrate judge’s ruling to buttress her case. Therefore, RRNA’s motion in
limine is GRANTED.
5. Witness Testimony Not Based on Personal Knowledge
RRNA seeks exclusion of witness testimony that is not based on personal knowledge.
Ms. Rohler does not object, and so RRNA’s motion in limine is GRANTED.
6. Plaintiff Terminating her Counsel in the First Lawsuit
RRNA seeks to exclude evidence regarding why Ms. Rohler terminated her counsel in

the first lawsuit against RRNA. Ms. Rohler argues that RRNA has listed exhibits that reference
the first lawsuit, and while she has not objected to the exhibits, she believes them to be
irrelevant. She states that if RRNA intends and does introduce evidence about the lawsuit, she
“should be allowed to tell her story as well.” Dkt. No. 80 at ECF p. 4. The Court finds that the
particular evidence RRNA seeks to exclude is irrelevant to the issues, though some evidence of
the first lawsuit is highly relevant. Therefore, RRNA’s motion in limine regarding why Ms.
Rohler terminated her counsel is GRANTED. The Court will deal with admissibility issues
regarding the other evidence as may arise during trial.
7. Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney’s Fees
RRNA seeks to preclude Ms. Rohler from presenting evidence regarding attorney’s fees
during trial. Ms. Rohler does not object. The proper handling of attorney’s fees is by filing a
motion with the Court. Thus, RRNA’s motion in limine is GRANTED.
8. Size of RRNA
RRNA seeks to exclude evidence about its size and considerable assets, as such evidence
would be irrelevant and prejudicial. Ms. Rohler contends this request is ambiguous. The Court
agrees that given the claim before the jury, the size and assets of RRNA is not relevant.
However, as pointed out by Ms. Rohler, the relationship between Rolls-Royce Corporation,
RRNA, and Rolls-Royce North America Holdings, Inc., may be relevant. However, the motion
in limine does not reach such evidence, and thus is GRANTED.
9. Size of the Law Firm Representing RRNA
RRNA seeks to exclude evidence regarding the size of the law firm that represents
RRNA. Ms. Rohler does not object, and thus the motion in limine is GRANTED.

10. Plaintiff’s Claims for Back Pay and Reinstatement
RRNA seeks exclusion of evidence regarding Ms. Rohler’s claims for back pay and
reinstatement, as these are matters for the Court and not the jury. Ms. Rohler does not object,
and thus the motion in limine is GRANTED.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Ms. Rohler’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 67) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, as described herein. RRNA’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 75) is GRANTED
as described herein. If the parties wish to renew any arguments as the trial unfolds, they are free
to approach the bench and do so. See United States v. Connelly, 874 F.2d 412, 416 (7th Cir.
1989) (emphasizing that an order either granting or denying a motion in limine is “a preliminary
decision . . . subject to change based upon the court’s exposure to the evidence at trial”).
SO ORDERED.
07/11/2014
Date: _________________
Distribution:
R. Anthony Prather
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
James F. Ehrenberg, Jr.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Paul J. Cummings
HENN HAWORTH CUMMNGS
[e-mail]
David M. Henn
HENN LAW FIRM P.C.
[e-mail]

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana