David et al v. Signal InternationaL LLC et al

Filing 2150

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 2119 Motion to Exclude Mancamp Video Designated by Signal. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

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
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude a video of Signal's
mancamp.1 In accordance with a prior court Order,2 Signal provided Plaintiffs with its
designations of the portions of the video it wishes to use during trial. Plaintiffs provided
the Court and Signal with their objections to those designations at the status conference
on January 14, 2015.3 Signal has responded to those objections.4 Having reviewed the
video designations, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the objections to designations 2:12:54 –
2:13:30 and 2:25:26 – 2:26:30 are OVERRULED. Plaintiffs objected on the basis that
these designations showed private or two-person rooms and that no rooms with this low
an occupancy were in use by the H2B workers while any of the Plaintiffs was at Signal.
Signal has responded that these designations show sick rooms that were in use by
Indian workers while some of the Plaintiffs were at Signal. Assuming Signal is able to
introduce these designations through competent testimony to that effect, the Court finds
Signal's designations relevant.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other objections to designations are
SUSTAINED. The Plaintiffs left Signal before suit was filed in March 2008 or shortly
thereafter. These designations depict various sections of the mancamp more than three
months after suit was filed. The allegations in this case stem from conditions at the

See R. Doc. 2119.
See R. Doc. 2143.
3 See R. Doc. 2147. Plaintiffs object to the following portions of the video: (1) 1:41:45 – 1:43:00; (2)
1:43:15 – 1:44:10; (3) 1:51:57 – 1:52:58; (4) 1:55:42 – 1:56:40; (5) 1:57:48 – 1:58:00; (6) 2:03:28 –
2:04:08; (7) 2:12:54 – 2:13:30; (8) 2:17:27 – 2:17:45; (9) 2:18:29 – 2:18:40; (10) 2:25:26 – 2:26:30; and
(11) 3:09:52 – 3:10:55.
4 See R. Doc.
1

2

2

mancamp extant while one or more of the Plaintiffs was there. A video taken more than
90 days later is simply not relevant. Signal had complete possession and control of the
mancamp while Plaintiffs were there and thereafter. It easily could have recorded
conditions at the relevant time but failed to do so. That it chose not to do so does not
the open the backdoor to irrelevant evidence.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of January, 2015.
________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3