Jones v. Prudential Security, Inc.
Filing
83
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Regarding Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 74 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (KSan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRIANA JONES,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 18-11960
Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
vs.
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC.,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
REGARDING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (Dkt. 74)
At the trial in this sexual harassment and retaliation case, Defendant Prudential Security,
Inc. asked the Court—after the close of proofs and immediately before closing arguments—to take
judicial notice of the minimum wage rate in Michigan. After authorizing the filing of briefs, which
it then reviewed, the Court denied the request in a brief oral opinion, which the Court stated would
be supplemented by a written one. This opinion explains fully the reasons for declining to take
judicial notice.
I. BACKGROUND
During her case-in-chief, Plaintiff Briana Jones testified, among other things, about the
back pay she was requesting as part of her damages. This testimony included information
regarding the pay that she received after her employment with Prudential ended in September
2016. In relevant part, Jones testified that in January 2017 she received pay at a rate of $8.50 per
hour from a new employer.
Jones was briefly questioned about this statement on cross
examination. Specifically, she was asked if she knew that minimum wage in Michigan was $8.90
per hour in January 2017. She responded that she did not know this. Jones was also asked whether
her testimony that she received pay $8.50 per hour in January 2017 was inaccurate. Jones
answered in the negative.
After three days of testimony by six witnesses—after all proofs had been submitted and
both sides had rested—Prudential’s counsel orally requested that the Court take judicial notice that
the minimum wage in January 2017 was $8.90 per hour, as supposedly established by the official
website of the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity.
Prudential
subsequently filed its request for judicial notice in written form on the docket (Dkt. 74). Jones
filed a response (Dkt. 75). Although Jones did not directly contest Prudential’s assertion that
Michigan’s minimum wage in January 2017 was $8.90, she nevertheless opposed Prudential’s
request for judicial notice of such, arguing, primarily, that the January 2017 minimum wage had
marginal relevance and that the request was both untimely and highly prejudicial. The Court orally
denied Prudential’s request for the reasons set forth in greater detail below.
II. ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides, in relevant part, that a court “may judicially notice
a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid.
201(b)(2) (emphasis added). At the same time, the rule also provides that a court “shall take
judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.” Fed. R. Evid.
201(c)(2) (emphasis added). The Sixth Circuit has explained that, “Although Rule 201 is phrased
in mandatory language, courts of appeals review a district court’s refusal to take judicial notice for
abuse of discretion.” Deal v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 852 n.10 (6th Cir. 2004)
(citing Toth v. Grand Trunk R.R., 306 F.3d 335, 349 (6th Cir. 2002)). Consequently, the decision
as to whether to take judicial notice of a fact is within the trial court’s sound discretion.
2
In this case, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to take judicial notice of the
January 2017 minimum wage due to (i) the minimal relevance of the information, (ii) the disputed
significance of the evidence, (iii) the untimeliness of the request, and (iv) the unfair prejudice to
Jones. Each of these issues is addressed in turn.
A fact is not the proper subject of judicial notice if the notice is sought for a purpose that
is “not relevant or necessary to resolve th[e] action.” Cece v. Wayne County, 758 F. App’x. 418,
425 (6th Cir. 2018). Similarly, a fact is not the proper subject of judicial notice if “there is
considerable dispute over the significance” of the fact. See United States v. Bonds, 12 F. 3d 540,
553 (6th Cir. 1993).
In its brief, Prudential makes no effort to explain the relevance of this information. In
counsel’s oral argument, Prudential claimed that the information went to the “accuracy” of Jones’s
testimony regarding her damages. Although not fully spelled out, Prudential apparently was
arguing that the loss in pay that Jones suffered for approximately one month following her
separation from Prudential was less than what she claimed. If this was Prudential’s argument, it
suffers from two deficiencies: the evidence was of minimal relevance and its significance was
sharply disputed.
Jones sought a minimum of $385,680 in damages, including $24,525 in back pay.
Included in the back pay amount was a total of $300, for the period running from October 17, 2016
to February 1, 2017, during which she had worked 40 hours per week at an automotive plant.
Prudential sought judicial notice to prove that for one month of that period—January 1, 2017 to
February 1, 2017—the minimum wage was $0.40 per hour higher than what Jones testified she
was paid. That is, Prudential apparently requested judicial notice of the January 2017 minimum
wage to show that Jones was not entitled to $64 of the total damages that she sought. Because $64
3
is a negligible portion of the overall amount of damages that Jones sought, the Court determined
that the January 2017 minimum wage was of low relevance to the case.
Jones also strongly disputed that the January 2017 minimum wage information would have
any significant bearing on undermining the accuracy of her testimony. She noted that “[w]hat the
Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity says the minimum wage must be hardly
constitutes evidence that Ms. Jones was paid any particular amount at any particular time[,]” as it
is entirely possible that “Ms. Jones’s employer was [not] actually complying with the minimumwage laws . . . .” Pl. Resp. to Def. Req. at 4 (Dkt. 75). Indeed, the fact that minimum wage may
have been $8.90 in January 2017 says little to nothing about whether Jones’s employer at the time
followed the applicable minimum wage laws. It also says little to nothing as to whether Jones’s
employer at the time was even required to pay her the Michigan minimum wage of $8.90.1
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the relevance of the January 2017 minimum wage to the
issue of the accuracy of Jones’s testimony was highly disputed.
Further, the Court determined that the request was untimely. Although Rule 201 provides
that a court may take judicial notice at “any stage of a proceeding,” see Fed. R. Evid. 201(d), this
does not mean that a court must take judicial notice of a fact at the eleventh hour, after the close
of proofs. As Jones points out, she disclosed in the proposed joint final pretrial order submitted
by the parties on July 29, 2019—roughly 20 months before the trial in this matter began—that she
earned pay at a rate of $8.50 per hour in January 2017. Prudential thus had significant notice of
this component of Jones’s case and ample opportunity to prepare for it. Jones did not have
anywhere near the same notice of Prudential’s intent to raise the January 2017 minimum wage
1
Michigan’s regular minimum wage does not apply to all employees. See Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 408.414a-d.
4
issue. Even in the amended proposed joint final pretrial order, which the parties later submitted
on January 11, 2021, Prudential stated only that it “contests that any damages are owed in this
case.” Prudential did not raise the January 2017 minimum wage issue even obliquely.
Moreover, during trial, Prudential failed to cross examine Jones as to her knowledge
regarding whether her employer complied with the minimum wage laws in January 2017. And
Prudential did not submit any evidence—including the official website of the Michigan
Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity—to counter the amount of damages Jones sought
for January 2017 or the accuracy of Jones’s testimony regarding her rate of pay. Rather, Prudential
waited until after the close of proofs to request judicial notice of the January 2017 minimum wage.
As one court aptly stated, “Judicial notice is a process by which a court takes recognition of a fact
in the absence of formal proof; it is not a mechanism by which a party may avoid timely and proper
objections to evidence that is reasonably available and, which, but for counsel’s error, would be
subject to introduction and consideration through the normal evidentiary mode.” United States v.
Neill, 964 F. Supp. 438, 445-446 (D.D.C. 1997).
For similar reasons, the Court determined that taking judicial notice of the January 2017
minimum wage—after all proofs had been submitted and both sides had rested—would unfairly
prejudice Jones. Taking judicial notice at that time would have deprived Jones of the opportunity
to address the noticed information. Prudential should have explored the significance of the January
2017 minimum wage during trial. If Prudential had done so, the relevance of the January 2017
minimum wage and the admissibility of the official website of the Michigan Department of Labor
and Economic Development could have been tested.
Jones’s counsel would have had the
opportunity to probe the information and, if necessary, elicit testimony or submit evidence, such
as pay stubs, to establish the accuracy of Jones’s testimony regarding her January 2017 pay rate.
5
It would have been unfair to Jones to prejudice her by rewarding Prudential for its slothful
behavior. Accordingly, the Court declined to take judicial notice of the January 2017 minimum
wage.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court denied Prudential’s request for judicial notice on the
January 2017 minimum wage.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2021
Detroit, Michigan
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
6
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?