White v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al
Filing
42
ORDER: as to 39 Order requiring defts to submit, for in camera review, a list of all agent Michelli's criminal convictions over 10 years...IT IS ORDERED that evidence relating to Michelli's criminal conviction is not subject to production in this lawsuit, and no further inquiry into the criminal conviction is allowed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Docia L Dalby on 5/6/2011. (JDL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHRISTOPHER WHITE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 09-991-BAJ-DLD
STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL
ORDER
This matter is before the court pursuant to an Order (rec. doc. 39), entered on April
4, 2011, requiring defendants to submit to the court, for in camera review, a list of all agent
Michelli’s criminal convictions over 10 years old. The court was then to examine the
convictions in order to determine whether any of those convictions are relevant to the
issues in this civil suit, and thus subject to production. The defendants have submitted one
conviction, and the court has reviewed same.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) governs discovery in civil litigation, and provides, in relevant
part, as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
relevant to the claim or defense of any party...For good cause, the court may
order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) provides that the court may issue a protective order
forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery.
Fed. R. Evid. 609 governs the admissibility of criminal convictions, in pertinent part,
as follows:
(a)
General rule. – For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a
witness,
***
(2)
evidence that any witness has been convicted of a
crime shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false
statement....
(b)
Time limit. – Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not
admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed
since the date of the conviction...unless the court determines,
in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the
conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances
substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
The plaintiff alleges that one of defendants’ employees, Michelli, “intentionally
subjected” plaintiff to “unfair discriminatory treatment that culminated with defendants’
unjustifiable failure and/or refusal to provide” plaintiff “with an opportunity to continue his
employment as an insurance agent for defendants.” (rec. doc. 1-2, pg 3) Plaintiff alleges
that Michelli became enraged and verbally threatening at him when he complained about
another supervisor, and criticized him when he complained to Human Resources about an
insensitive video that had circulated via email. Id., at pg. 2. Plaintiff alleges these actions
were in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§
2000e, et seq., the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Laws, La. R.S. 23:301, et. Seq.,
unlawful retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), La. R.S. 51:2256(1), and other
applicable laws. Id., at pg. 4.
A review of Michelli’s criminal conviction reveals that the conviction is not relevant
to any claim or defense in this lawsuit as the conviction does not involve dishonesty or a
false statement.
Also, the probative value of the 20-year old conviction does not
-2-
substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect. As the evidence of the conviction is not
relevant to the case at bar, it also is not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 609.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that evidence relating to Michelli’s criminal conviction is not subject
to production in this lawsuit, and no further inquiry into the criminal conviction is allowed.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 6, 2011.
D
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DOCIA L. DALBY
-3-
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?