Fields v. Department of Public Safety et al

Filing 118

ORDER....Defendants Motion in Limine 94 and objections 115 are granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs Motion in Limine 114 is denied. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 11/29/14. (KDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EDWINA FIELDS
CIVIL ACTION
versus
NO. 11-101-JWD-RLB
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
ELAYN HUNT CORRECTIONAL
CENTER
RULING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion in Limine (Doc. 94); the Clarification of
Motion in Limine (Doc. 111); and a separate list of objections to certain of Plaintiff’s exhibits (Doc.
115) filed by Defendant Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“Defendant”) as well as
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 114). The motions are opposed. Oral argument is not necessary.
For the reasons stated below, the Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 94) and objections
are granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 114) is denied.
A. Background
After the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 82), Plaintiff
is left with the following claims to pursue at trial: First, her allegation that she received disparate
treatment because of her race and gender in two specific instances: a) Defendant’s failure to transfer
her to the 24 hour Unit Ward and b) Defendant’s failure to transfer her from the HSU and D-1
Cellblocks. Plaintiff’s second remaining claim is that she was subjected to a hostile work
environment in three ways: a) Lt. Col. Jackson allegedly moved her desk so that an inmate could
more easily masturbate in front of her; b) Plaintiff was allegedly told to stop writing Rule 21
violations; and c) she was exposed generally to watching inmates masturbate and having them do
so on her.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion In Limine to Exclude the admission of Defendant’s Exhibit 20
arguing that after the Court’s Ruling on one of her claims, the exhibit (a tape recorded interview of
the Plaintiff) is no longer relevant and is inadmissable or, alternatively should only be allowed for
impeachment. (Doc. 114) Defendant seeks to exclude portions of the same exhibit but seeks to admit
other portions. (Docs 94, 94-1 and 111) Defendant has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude other
evidence that it contends is irrelevant to the remaining claims and therefore inadmissable. (Docs.
94, 94-1 and 111). Defendant has filed a separate list of objections to certain of Plaintiff’s exhibits.
(Doc. 115).
B. Exhibit 20 - The Audio Tape
Exhibit 20 is audio tape recording of an interview Plaintiff gave to representatives of the
Defendant in connection with Plaintiff’s allegation that her supervisor sexually harassed her by
asking her whether she was in her menstrual period. During that interview, she was asked about that
allegation but, in addition, other matters were discussed.
Plaintiff argues that the allegation regarding her supervisor’s menstrual period question is
no longer relevant since the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on this point.
Plaintiff argues in addition that the tape is unnecessary because the parties to the conversation will
testify about it but, in the alternative, the tape should be allowed only for impeachment. Defendant
agrees that the tape is irrelevant as to that part of the tape that deals with the menstrual period but
argues that other portions bear on the remaining allegations Plaintiff continues to pursue.
The Court finds that those portions of the tape dealing with Col. Jackson’s question about
Plaintiff’s period is inadmissable. As to the other parts of the tape identified by Defendant in Doc.
111, p. 2, these are relevant to Plaintiff’s remaining claims and Defendant certainly may use those
portions of the tape to attempt to impeach Plaintiff’s testimony (Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A)).

As to the tape’s introduction for purposes other than impeachment, Plaintiff does not argue
that the tape is not authentic or that she did not make the statement. Rather, she argues that the same
information contained in the tape is available through other witnesses. The Court finds that this is
not a ground for excluding otherwise relevant evidence. The Plaintiff does not argue that the tape
is hearsay and correctly so. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). Thus, as long as the tape is properly
authenticated and identified and is limited to those portions identified in Doc. 111, p. 2, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Exhibit 20 is denied.
C. Evidence Regarding Stricken Claims
For reasons stated in its ruling (Doc. 82), the Court granted in part Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and dismissed the following claims:
1.

Plaintiff’s claims that she was discriminated against by not receiving awards;

2.

Plaintiff’s claim that she was discriminated against based on Defendant’s handling of her
Rule 21 violation lodged against James Maryland;

3.

The transfer of Lt. Tina Lacost from Cellblock D-1; and

4.

The comment or question made by Plaintiff’s supervisor regarding her menstrual period.
Defendant moves that evidence regarding those claims be stricken and disallowed because

such evidence is no longer relevant to any issue in the case. (Docs 94 and 94-1) Plaintiff argues that
this evidence continues to be relevant to the remaining claims to show, among other things,
Plaintiff’s “story” and, further, helps demonstrate both a hostile work environment and a “pattern
and practice” of discrimination. (Doc. 113).
The Court finds that the evidence surrounding these dismissed claims is not relevant to
Plaintiff’s remaining claims but, to the extent that it might be, its probative value is far out weighed
by its prejudicial effect. (Fed. R. Evid. 403) Therefore the Court grants the Defendant’s Motion in

Limine in this regard.
D. Evidence Regarding the Experience of Plaintiff’s Co-Employees
Defendant moves to exclude as irrelevant and potentially confusing and prejudicial 1) the
disciplinary history of Plaintiff’s co-employees, 2) any alleged adverse employment actions against
Lt. Donald Johnson; 3) the EEOC Complaint filed by Erica Wilson, 4) the demotions of other
employees at Defendant’s facility. Plaintiff argues that these items are relevant to demonstrate the
hostile work environment to which she was exposed, the “context” of the actions taken against her
and, further, represent a “pattern and practice of discrimination.”
1.

Disciplinary History of Co-Employees
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant’s argument is unclear as to exactly what

evidence it is trying to exclude. Generally, evidence of the experience of workers other that the
Plaintiff would be irrelevant and inadmissible but it is difficult to assess possible relevance and
admissibility without knowing specifically what evidence is being referred to. The Court
provisionally denies this part of Defendant’s motion subject to reconsideration at the time the
information is sought to be introduced. However, Plaintiff is counseled not to mention this evidence
in opening statement or otherwise unless and until introduced.
2.

Adverse Employment Actions Against Lt. Donald Johnson, EEOC Complaints of Erica
Wilson and Lt. Donald Johnson and Demotions of Lt. Donald Johnson, Lt. Col. Freddie
Jackson and Lt. Schwanda Harvey.
It is true that, in a case alleging employment discrimination and a hostile work environment,

“context matters” and the significance of the employer’s conduct “will often depend on the
particular circumstance.”1 However, the offered evidence supplying “context” needs to be relevant

1

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 69 (2006). While the
quoted language was made in connection with a retaliation claim, it is equally true in claims such
as the one before the Court.

to an issue before the jury - in this case: why Plaintiff was (and was not) transferred, why her desk
was moved, whether and why she was exposed to inmate masturbation and whether and why she
was counseled not to issue Rule 21 write-ups.
Plaintiff argues that the evidence in question shows a pattern or practice. Fed. R. Evid. 406
allows this kind of evidence under strict guidelines of sufficient similarity to the conduct in question
and sufficient numerosity of the conduct such that the conduct can fairly be characterized as “habit”
or “routine practice”. It appears from the limited information provided in briefing that the
requirements of Rule 406 will be difficult to meet but it is impossible for the Court to rule on the
motion without more information regarding the details of what is alleged. The Court provisionally
grants Defendant’s motion to the extent that this information will not be allowed to be mentioned
in opening statements but Plaintiff will be allowed, outside the presence of the jury, to attempt to
lay a sufficient foundation for the introduction of this evidence at trial.
E. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 94) and objections (Doc.
115) are granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 114) is denied.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on November 29, 2014.

S
JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA