David et al v. Signal InternationaL LLC et al

Filing 2126

ORDER granting 2107 Motion to Exclude Materials Designated by Defendants for Use in Opening Statements and granting in part and denying in part 2080 Motion in Support of Objections to Dewan Video in Opening, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/10/2015. (tsf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al.
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION “E”

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION "E"

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 13-6218
(c/w 13-6219, 13-6220,
13-6221, 14-732, 141818)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION "E"

Applies To:
David v. Signal
(No. 08-1220)

1

ORDER
The parties have submitted objections to deposition testimony, exhibits, and
demonstrative exhibits intended to be used in opening statement, and responses to
those objections.1 The Court's rulings are below.
I. Deposition Testimony
A. Burnett Objections
Burnett moves to prohibit Plaintiffs from using part of a video deposition of
Sachin Dewan concerning use of I-140s for Defendant Indo-Amerisoft—a company
owned by Dr. Kurella Rao—both during opening statement and at any point during
trial.2 The designated portion concerns Indo-Amerisoft applicants who are not plaintiffs
in this case. Allowing the jury to hear this testimony would be confusing, because the
testimony is taken out of context and was not elicited with respect to the trial plaintiffs.
The testimony in this setting is overly prejudicial to Burnett.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART.3 Plaintiff may
not use the deposition designations during opening statement. The Court DEFERS a
ruling on further use of Mr. Dewan's deposition testimony during trial.
B. Signal Objections
Signal objects to Plantiffs' use of deposition testimony from Thomas Rigolo both
during opening statement and at any point during trial. Mr. Rigolo was Signal's Senior
Vice President and General Manager of Texas Operations from 2004 to 2007. Plaintiffs

1 See R. Docs. 2078, 2079, 2080, 2106, 2107, 2108, 2109, 2110. Two objections were submitted as
motions. See R. Doc. 2080, 2107.
2 See R. Doc. 2080.
3 Id.

2

have designated for use during opening statement page 246, line 1 – page 271, line 1 of
Mr. Rigolo's deposition.4
Mr. Rigolo was a corporate officer of Signal who had some involvement with the
H2B program. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, the opinion expressed in the
designated testimony is admissible and is not so prejudicial as to warrant exclusion. If
Signal wishes the inclusion of lines 16 – 19 on page 245, it shall notify Plaintiffs
immediately, and Plaintiffs will also include this testimony in their opening statement.
For the foregoing reasons, the objection is OVERRRULED IN PART. Plaintiffs
may use the designated portions of Mr. Rigolo's testimony during opening statement,
subject to Signal's request to include lines 16 – 19 of page 245. The Court DEFERS a
ruling on further use of Mr. Rigolo's deposition testimony during trial.
C. Plaintiffs' Objections
Plaintiffs move to prohibit Signal from showing during opening statement certain
testimony from the video deposition of Saket Soni, the Executive Director of the New
Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice.5 Signal has designated page 286, lines 8 –
18 for opening statement. Plaintiffs point out this designation is not true deposition
testimony at all; rather, it is an audio clip from a taped speech purportedly given by Mr.
Soni that was played for him at his deposition. The speech was given by Mr. Soni on a
date unknown to the Court to an audience unknown to the Court under circumstances
unknown to the Court.

The speech is not sworn testimony, subject to cross-

examination, on a topic relevant to this case.

It is instead a brazen attempt to

circumvent the rules of evidence and this Court's prior ruling that the political views of
See R. Doc. 2110.
R. Doc. 2107. This Motion also objects to Burnett's use of a certain demonstrative exhibit. That objection
is discussed in subsection III below.
4
5

3

any party to this case, their counsel, or other witnesses are entirely irrelevant.6 If either
Mr. Soni or counsel for Signal believes this trial provides an opportunity to expound
upon an individual or an organization's political beliefs and causes, they are mistaken.7
For the reasons previously stated, this portion of the Motion is GRANTED.8
Signal may not play the designated portion of Mr. Soni's video deposition at any point
during trial.
II. Exhibits
The parties did not object to exhibits that Signal and Burnett will use during
opening statement.

Dewan does not intend to use any exhibits during opening

statement. The parties have, however, objected to certain exhibits that Plaintiffs will use
during opening statement. Those objections are addressed below.
A. Exhibits 1893 and 1984
Burnett filed a Motion in Limine with respect to these exhibits, which are emails
written by Burnett in late 2006 to other individuals involved in certain aspects of this
case.9 Burnett argues the emails are irrelevant because they concern individual workers
who are not plaintiffs in this case and are overly prejudicial due to some of the language
used by Burnett. Burnett also argues the emails will confuse the jury and waste the
Court's time.
The Court finds these emails to be relevant and not overly prejudicial. The
Motion is DENIED, and these exhibits may be used by Plaintiffs during opening
statement.
R. Doc. 2074. That Mr. Soni is not an attorney in this case is immaterial. To the extent necessary, the
Court hereby clarifies its Order to exclude political views of counsel, parties, or witnesses and to exclude
testimony regarding related cases involving Indian workers by any witness.
7 Furthermore, Mr. Soni's state of mind is not relevant to any determination that will be made by the jury.
8 R. Doc. 2107.
9 R. Doc. 2006.
6

4

B. Exhibit 1903
Signal objects to the use of this exhibit both during opening statement and at
trial.10 The exhibit is an email from Mr. Pol to John Sanders of Signal. Mr. Pol testified
at his deposition that he sent this email to Mr. Sanders and that they discussed the email
after it was sent. Signal argues that Mr. Sanders will testify that he did not, or does not
recall, reading the email until late 2008. Plaintiffs' counsel has represented that he will
not reference Mr. Sanders' testimony about when he saw or read this email during
opening, but rather will refer only to Mr. Pol's testimony with respect to the email.
Signal's objection is OVERRULED IN PART, and Plaintiffs may use Exhibit 1903
during opening statement. The Court DEFERS on whether this exhibit may be used
during trial.
C. Exhibit 1944
Signal objects to the use of this exhibit during opening statement. This exhibit is
a letter from Pat Killeen of Signal to the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality. Signal objects to this exhibit as being overly prejudicial and because of concern
that counsel for Plaintiffs will misrepresent the environmental conditions at the man
camp versus Signal's headquarters and use the document to make improper argument
that Signal made misrepresentations. Counsel for Plaintiffs represented to the Court
that he is mindful of the purpose of opening statement and will conduct his opening
statement accordingly. Further, counsel represented he will accurately represent the
environmental conditions at the man camp site and the site of Signal's corporate
headquarters. Signal's objection is OVERRULED, and Exhibit 1944 may be used by
Plaintiffs during opening statement.
10

See R. Doc. 2081.
5

D. Exhibits 1941 and 1951
Signal objects to the use of these exhibits during opening statement. The exhibits
are emails Plaintiffs contend show a culture of intolerance and discrimination at Signal.
Exhibit 1941 is an email sent between Signal management, in particular Tracey Binion
who works in human resources. Exhibit 1951 is an email sent by the Signal CEO's
secretary to a person who has not been identified to the Court. Signal's objections are
OVERRULED IN PART.

Exhibit 1941 may be used during Plaintiffs' opening

statement, but Exhibit 1951 may not.
III. Demonstrative Exhibits
Plaintiffs presented the Court with a copy of proposed demonstrative exhibits to
be used during opening statement. The parties raised several objections but have now
resolved all but two. With respect to those objections, the Court rules as follows: (1)
Plaintiffs may use Table 2 and Table 3 in their opening statement; (2) Plaintiffs may not
use the slide which purports to define the elements of a forced labor violation. Burnett
is similarly precluded from presenting open argument on the law of forced labor.11
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of January, 2015.
_____________ _______ __________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

R. Doc. 2107 is therefore granted in its entirety as to Burnett.
6