Davis v. Baton Rouge City Constables Office

Filing 53

RULING AND ORDER granting 27 Motion in Limine to Exclude and/or Limit Testimony and Evidence and denying 28 Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Defendant Exhibits. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 8/25/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RHEA DAVIS CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
BATON ROUGE CITY NO.: 16-00297-BAJ-RLB

CONSTABLES OFFICE

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court are the Motion in Limine to Exclude and/or Limit
Testimony and Evidence (Doc. 27) filed, by Defendant and the Motion in Limine

to Exclude Certain Defendant Exhibits (Doc. 28) filed by Plaintiff. Defendant,
in its Motion, seeks to preclude Plaintiff from introducing at trial a Determination
that was issued by the Louisiana Commission on Human Rights. Plaintiff, in her
NEotion, seeks to preclude Defendant from introducing at trial a document containing
the civil service test scores for all the candidates who were otherwise qualified for the
position of "Sergeant" within Defendant's organizational structure. Defendant filed
a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs Motion. (See Doc. 30). For the reasons
explained herein, Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude and/or Limit
Testimony and Evidence (Doc. 27) is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs Motion in

Limine to Exclude Certain Defendant Exhibits (Doc. 28) is DENIED.

I. DEFENDANT'S MOTION
Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from introducing at trial a Determination
that was issued by the Louisiana Commission on Human Rights ("LCHR"), in which
the LCHR allegedly made the determination that Defendant violated Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. ch. 21, subch. VI, by engaging in the conduct that
gave rise to this lawsuit. The Determination recounts — briefly and in general terms

- statements made by persons in interviews conducted by the LCHR and ultimately
reaches the conclusion that "the evidence obtained during the investigation indicates
that [Defendant] improperly used sex as a motivating factor to deny [Plaintiff] a
promotion [and] a subsequent position for which she interviewed. (Doc. 27-2 at pp.
2-3).

Federal Rule of Evidence 403 permits the Court to "exclude relevant evidence
if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403. The

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has noted that a "Letter of
Violation" issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -~ which is
comprised of information substantially similar in nature to that found in the
Determination issued by the LCHR in this case - may be excludable "because it
'suggests that[,] preliminarily[,] there is reason to believe that a violation has taken
place' and therefore results in unfair prejudice to [a] defendant/" EEOC v. Manville
Sales Corp., 27 F.3d 1089, 1095 (5th Cii\ 1994) (quoting Gilchrist v. Jim Slemons

Imps., Inc., 803 F.2d 1488, 1500 (9th Cir. 1986)).
The probative value of the Determination is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice to the Defendant. The jury in this case will be tasked with
determining whether Defendant failed to promote or hire Plaintiff because of her sex.
Through the Determination, the LCHR already has reached the conclusion that
Defendant indeed "improperly used sex as a motivating factor to deny [Plaintiff] a
promotion [and] a subsequent position for which she interviewed, essentially
suggesting that Defendant violated Title VII. (Id.), The introduction of the
Determination, therefore, would unfairly prejudice the jury: the risk that the jury
would give undue weight to the conclusion of the LCHR that Defendant utilized
Plaintiffs sex as a basis for adverse employment actions - and that the jury thereby
would adopt that conclusion as their own due to the imprimatur of the State of
Louisiana - is substantial. See Manville Sales Corp,, 27 F.3d at 1095. The probative
value of the evidence - which is low, considering that the report merely recounts
general details that tlie LCHR gleaned through its interviews of persons who will be
called by the parties to testify at trial - is "substantially outweighed" by this unfair
prejudice, and the Determination therefore shall be excluded from evidence. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 403.

II. PLAINTIFFS MOTION
Plaintiff seeks to preclude Defendant from introducing at trial a document
containing the civil service test scores for all the candidates who were otherwise
qualified for the position of "Sergeant within Defendant s organizational structure
("civil service test scores").1 Plaintiff argues that the civil service test scores were not
provided to Plaintiff by Defendant during the discovery period and that, therefore,
Defendant should be precluded from introducing the civil service test scores at trial.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) requires each party to provide to the
other "a copy ... of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible
things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and- may use

to support its claims or defenses." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l)(A)(ii). If a party fails to
provide information ... as required by Rule 26(a) . . ., the party is not allowed to use
that information ... to supply evidence . . . at a trial, unless the failure was

substantially justified or is harmless." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(l). "In evaluating
whether a violation of [RJule 26 is harmless, the Fifth Circuit has instructed courts
to consider four factors: "(I) the importance of the evidence [,] (2) the prejudice to the
opposing party of including the evidence[,] (3) the possibility of curing such prejudice
by granting a continuance [J and (4) the explanation for the party's failure to disclose.
Tex. A&M Research Found, v, Magna Transp,, Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 402 (5th Cii\ 2003).

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff did not describe with clarity the specific documents she wishes to
exclude from evidence. Plaintiff merely identified the documents she wishes to exclude as
"documents, identified for the first time during preparation of the Joint Pretrial Order." Doc. 28 at
p. 1. Plaintiff then described the documents as "certain documents on Defendants Exhibit List,
including 'Civil Service Test Scores of All Qualified Applicants for the Sergeant Position."' Doc. 28-1
at p. 2. The document containing the civil service test scores is the only document that Plaintiff
describes with particularity. See Docs. 28, 28-1.

Defendant's violation of Rule 26, even assuming that a violation occurred, is

harmless. Counsel for Defendant represented to the Court that he has an "honest
and good faith belief that Defendant did in fact produce the civil service test scores
to Plaintiff "on February 10, 2017,' (Doc. 30 at p. 2). Any failure to disclose the civil
service test scores prior to the preparation of the Joint Pretrial Order, therefore,
appears to be inadvertent Further, the civil service test scores nonetheless were

submitted to Plaintiff on July 20, 2017, and Plaintiff therefore has enjoyed five weeks
to investigate this document for authenticity and accuracy. (Id. at p. 3). Additionally,
the civil service test scores demonstrate that Plaintiff obtained the highest score on
the relevant exam among all qualified applicants, and therefore the civil service test
scores may not be prejudicial to Plaintiff whatsoever. (Id. at pp. 2-3). Therefore,
considering the factors espoused by the Fifth Circuit in Texas A&M Research
Foundation v, Magna Transportation, Inc., 338 F.3d 394 (5th Cir. 2003), the Court
finds that Defendant's alleged violation of Rule 26 was harmless and that the civil
service test scores thus shall not be excluded.

III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion in Limine to Exclude and/or Limit
Testimony and Evidence (Doc. 27) filed by Defendant is GRANTED. The
"Determination" issued by the Louisiana Commission on Human Rights regarding
Defendant's conduct that gave rise to this action shall be EXCLUDED from evidence
at trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion in Limine to Exclude
Certain Defendant Exhibits (Doc. 28) filed by Plaintiff is DENIED.

< ~/-.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this /-J -day of August, 2017
..-^ < '

'V

BRIAN A. JAdKSQlN, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA