Vogel v. E.D. Bullard Company
Filing
121
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) 79 Motion in Limine, 81 Motion in Limine, 82 Motion in Limine, 83 Motion in Limine, and 85 Motion in Limine are GRANTED. (2) All evidence re Pla's abilities and experience prior to his employment w ED Bullard Co is EXCLUDED. (3) All testimony and evidence re Eric Pasch's relationship w his son are EXCLUDED. (4) All testimony of Peter A. Kunk is EXCLUDED. (5) All testimony of Debbie Kenny is EXCLUDED. (6) All evidence and testimony re Pla's conversations w Glen Weingarth are EXCLUDED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 10/16/2013. (SCD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
JAMES D. VOGEL,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
E.D. BULLARD COMPANY,
Defendant.
**
This
matter
is
**
before
**
the
**
Civil Action No.
5:12-cv-11-JMH
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER
**
Court
on
Defendant
E.D.
Bullard Company’s (“Bullard”) Motions in Limine to Exclude
All Testimony and Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's Abilities
and Experience Prior to Joining E.D. Bullard [DE 79], to
Exclude
All
Testimony
and
Evidence
About
Eric
Pasch's
Relationship With His Son [DE 81], to Exclude All Testimony
of
Peter
Debbie
A.
Kenny
Testimony
Kunk
[DE
82],
to
Exclude
All
Testimony
[DE
83],
and
to
Exclude
All
Evidence
About
Plaintiff's
Weingarth [DE 85].
102,
103,
motions.
104,
Conversations
with
of
and
Glen
Plaintiff has filed Responses [DE 101,
107],
stating
his
objections
to
these
No Replies in further support of the Motions in
Limine have been filed, and the time for doing so has now
expired.
Having
considered
these
motions,
the
Court
concludes that they should be granted.
“Evidence is relevant if . . . it has any tendency to
make a fact more or less probable than it would be without
the evidence. . . and . . . the fact is of consequence in
determining the action.”
Fed. R. Evid. 401.
evidence
unless
is
admissible”
otherwise
“Relevant
provided
by
relevant law or rule, and “[i]rrelevant evidence is not
admissible.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 402.
Further, “[t]he court
may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following:
misleading
unfair
the
prejudice,
jury,
undue
confusing
delay,
the
wasting
needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
issues,
time,
or
See Fed. R.
Evid. 403.
With
these
rules
in
mind,
the
resolution
of
Defendant’s motions in limine is a straightforward matter.
The issue to be tried is quite limited:
whether Vogel has
a right under the parties’ Agreement to keep the signing
bonus paid to him so long because either (1) his employment
was not terminated for cause or (2) his employment was
terminated for cause but the employer’s decision was taken
in bad faith, i.e., was not justified.
Thus, the trier of
fact will need to consider facts related to Plaintiff’s
2
performance
which
during
informed
his
tenure
Bullard’s
at
the
decision
company
to
and
facts
terminate
his
employment.
Testimony
and
evidence
about
Vogel’s
abilities
and
experience prior to joining Bullard and his conversations
with a recruiter, Glen Weingarth, in the period leading up
to his employment, therefore, have no tendency to make a
fact about his employment experience or performance while
at Bullard or the termination of that employment more or
less probable than it would be without the evidence nor are
they of consequence in the determination of the action.
See Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402.
fathom
how
testimony
or
Further, the Court cannot
evidence
about
Eric
Pasch’s
relationship with his son, no matter how charged or even
violent that relationship might be, could be relevant to
the matter at hand.
Finally,
the
Id.
Court
concludes
that
the
testimony
of
Debbie Kenny, who held the same position as Vogel but whose
employment with Bullard was terminated more than a year
before he joined the company, is not relevant to the matter
to be tried.
She may have also been let go because she was
“not a good fit,” but she has no personal knowledge of
Vogel’s employment or the termination of his employment.
The
Court
is
not
persuaded
3
that
the
use
of
similar
terminology with respect to the reason for her departure or
even the fact that she may have had a similar experience
with the management at Bullard makes the facts within her
knowledge
relevant
to
a
determination
of
this
action.
Similarly, the testimony of Peter A. Kunk, who consulted
with and coached Kenny and others at Bullard more than two
years before Vogel’s employment with the company is hardly
relevant.
experience
nearly
He
or
has
the
six-month
no
first-hand
environment
employment
at
at
knowledge
Bullard
the
of
Vogel’s
during
Vogel’s
company.
As
this
evidence would be irrelevant to the inquiry at trial, it
shall be excluded.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1)
Limine
That Defendant E.D. Bullard Company’s Motions in
to
Exclude
All
Testimony
and
Evidence
Regarding
Plaintiff's Abilities and Experience Prior to Joining E.D.
Bullard
[DE
79],
to
Exclude
All
Testimony
and
Evidence
About Eric Pasch's Relationship With His Son [DE 81], to
Exclude All Testimony of Peter A. Kunk [DE 82], to Exclude
All Testimony of Debbie Kenny [DE 83], and to Exclude All
Evidence and Testimony About Plaintiff's Conversations with
Glen Weingarth [DE 85] are GRANTED;
4
(2)
that all evidence regarding Plaintiff’s abilities
and experience prior to his employment with E.D. Bullard
Company is EXCLUDED from the trial of this matter;
(3)
that
all
testimony
Pasch’s
relationship
limited
to,
the
with
topics
and
his
evidence
son,
about
mentioned
including,
in
the
but
Eric
not
deposition
citations listed in the motion, are EXCLUDED from the trial
of this matter;
(4)
that all testimony of Peter A. Kunk is EXCLUDED
from the trial of this matter;
(5)
that all testimony of Debbie Kenny is EXCLUDED
from the trial of this matter; and
(6)
that all evidence and testimony about Plaintiff’s
conversations
with
Glen
Weingarth
are
trial of this matter.
This the 16th day of October, 2013.
5
EXCLUDED
from
the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?