HIRLSTON v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

Filing 163

ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY FACT STATEMENT TO THE JURY. This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Preliminary Fact Statement to the Jury filed by Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco") (Filing N o. 159 ). Costco asks the Court read a statement at the beginning of trial that outlines "the reasons for the November 3, 2015, job assessment meeting" that led to Costco placing Plaintiff Karen R. Hirlston ("Hirlston") "o n a leave of absence." In response, Hirlston confirms that she "does not agree to Defendant's proposed stipulation," therefore, the Court should deny the Motion since "'[a] stipulation is a contract between two partie s to agree that a certain fact is true.'" Here, with no meeting of the minds, there can be no stipulation. As noted by Hirlston in her response, Costco is free to include the proposed information in its opening statement, but there is no procedural bases for the Court to read such a statement to the jury. For these reasons, Costco's Motion is DENIED. (See Order). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/3/2021. (AKH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
KAREN R. HIRLSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-04699-TWP-MPB

ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY FACT STATEMENT TO THE JURY
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Preliminary Fact Statement to the Jury filed
by Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco") (Filing No. 159). Costco asks the Court
read a statement at the beginning of trial that outlines "the reasons for the November 3, 2015, job
assessment meeting" that led to Costco placing Plaintiff Karen R. Hirlston ("Hirlston") "on a leave
of absence." Id. at 1. After Costco circulated the proposed statement to Hirlston's counsel on May
12, 2021, Hirlston succinctly responded that she did "not agree to the proposed stipulation" on
May 26, 2021. Id. at 3. Even so, Costco maintains that reading the instruction will help "obviate[e]
any need to explain the background" surrounding the meeting and "avoid[] objections that may
needlessly delay the trial," ultimately "facilitat[ing] a more efficient presentation of evidence and
assist[ing] in presenting this case in an expeditious fashion." Id. at 5.
In response, Hirlston confirms that she "does not agree to Defendant's proposed
stipulation," therefore, the Court should deny the Motion since "'[a] stipulation is a contract
between two parties to agree that a certain fact is true.'" (Filing No. 162 at 2 (quoting ACF 2006
Corp. v. Conour, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9991, at *10 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 24, 2017) (citing Analytical
Engineering, Inc. v. Baldwin Filters, Inc., 425 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2005)))). Hirlston argues that

Costco "essentially attempts with its Motion to have the Court order [ ] Hirlston to stipulate to
facts, something that only the parties themselves can agree and/or stipulate to." Id. at 4.
The Court agrees with Hirlston. "[A] stipulation amounts to a contract" between the parties.
Tidemann v. Nadler Golf Car Sales, Inc., 224 F.3d 719, 723 (7th Cir. 2000). Hornbook law teaches
that absent mutual assent, there can be no contract. See Matter of Turner, 156 F.3d 713, 718 (7th
Cir. 1998) ("Fundamental to the concept of an agreement is an expression of mutual assent between
the two (or more) parties to that agreement."). Here, with no meeting of the minds, there can be no
stipulation. As noted by Hirlston in her response, Costco is free to include the proposed
information in its opening statement, but there is no procedural bases for the Court to read such a
statement to the jury. For these reasons, Costco's Motion is DENIED (Filing No. 159).
SO ORDERED.
Date:

6/3/2021

Distribution:

Kevin W. Betz
BETZ & BLEVINS
[e-mail]

Sara Eber Fowler
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP (Chicago)
[e-mail]

Sandra L. Blevins
BETZ & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]

Chad Harrison Holler
BETZ & BLEVINS
[e-mail]

Courtney E. Endwright
BETZ & BLEVINS
[e-mail]

Jamie A. Maddox
BETZ & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]

Erin D. Foley
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
[e-mail]

Kyla J. Miller
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP (Chicago)
[e-mail]

2