BELL v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC

Filing 87

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE denying 55 Motion in Limine For Order Specifying Established Fact By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (mtm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BRIAN BELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
O’REILLY AUTO
ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a
O’Reilly Auto Parts,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:16-cv-00501-JDL
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE
Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (“O’Reilly Auto”) has moved the
Court in limine (ECF No. 55) for an Order specifying that the following conclusion
from the summary judgment order (ECF No. 44) be treated as an established fact in
the upcoming trial between the above-captioned parties, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(g): “That the Plaintiff’s ability to work long hours on short notice at unpredictable
times was an essential function of the Plaintiff’s Store Manager position at O’Reilly
Auto Parts.” See ECF No. 55 at 1. Bell opposes the motion (ECF No. 67).
The summary judgment record supports the Court’s factual determination that
Bell’s ability to work long hours on short notice at unpredictable times was an
essential function of Bell’s Store Manager position at O’Reilly Auto. At trial, however,
the parties will have the opportunity to delve into the parameters of this function
through live witness testimony which will explain the Store Manager’s role in the
operation of O’Reilly Auto’s retail stores. A jury may therefore reasonably define this

essential job function with more precision (and, therefore, differently) than that
permitted by the written summary judgment record. Accordingly, the motion in
limine is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2018.
/s/ JON D. LEVY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2