Walters et al v. Flint et al
Filing
693
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 493 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
Case 5:17-cv-10164-JEL-KGA ECF No. 693, PageID.45587 Filed 02/17/22 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Sherrod, Teed, Vanderhagen and Case No. 5:17-cv-10164-JELWare,
KGA
Plaintiffs,
Hon. Judith E. Levy
Flint Water Cases Bellwether I
v.
VNA and LAN,
Defendants.
_________________________________ /
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWNAM,
INC. AND LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWNAM, P.C.’S MOTION
IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE JEFFREY HANSEN E-MAILS [493]
Before the Court is a motion in limine by Lockwood, Andrews &
Newnam, Inc., and Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, P.C.’s (collectively
“LAN”) to exclude e-mails by Jeffrey Hansen which describe the City of
Flint in negative terms. (ECF No. 493.)
This motion in limine seeks to exclude four e-mails authored by
Jeffrey Hansen, a project manager employed by LAN. The e-mails use
crude and unflattering language to describe the City of Flint. LAN argues
that the e-mails are inadmissible because they have no relevance to any
Case 5:17-cv-10164-JEL-KGA ECF No. 693, PageID.45588 Filed 02/17/22 Page 2 of 4
disputed issue in this case and because they are more prejudicial than
probative. (ECF No. 493, PageID.37100.)
Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Evidence
is relevant when it has “any tendency to make a fact more or less probable
than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also e.g.,
Brooks v. Caterpillar Global Mining America, LLC., 2016 WL 3676764,
at *2 (W.D. Ky., July 6, 2016). Two of the e-mail chains at issue in this
motion are plainly irrelevant. In one of them, Mr. Hansen forwards a
local news article allegedly about the City of Flint seizing and killing dogs
and declares that “flint stinks.” (ECF No. 493-4, PageID.37127.) In the
other, Mr. Hansen asks his girlfriend to feed his dog while he is working
in “Clown Town.” (ECF No. 493-3, PageID.37125.) Plaintiffs argue that
the insulting descriptions of Flint provide evidence of LAN’s attitude
towards Flint, but that argument is unpersuasive as to these purely
personal messages. Nor are these e-mails even tangentially related to Mr.
Hansen’s work for LAN or to LAN’s duties as a water engineer.
Accordingly, they are excluded.
In a third e-mail, Mr. Hansen characterizes Prof. Marc Edwards of
Virginia Tech as a “clown.” (ECF No. 493-5, PageID.37129.) Unlike Mr.
2
Case 5:17-cv-10164-JEL-KGA ECF No. 693, PageID.45589 Filed 02/17/22 Page 3 of 4
Hansen’s canine concerns, this message is relevant. Dr. Edwards is a key
figure in the Flint Water Crisis: his team was among the first to blow the
whistle on the dangerous lead levels in Flint’s drinking water. Mr.
Hansen’s dismissive attitude towards him is probative because it
suggests that he did not take the public health hazards involving lead
poisoning seriously. This e-mail is therefore admissible.
In the final e-mail chain, Mr. Hansen suggests that “2 thugs
robbing someone at gunpoint would symbolize the area [Flint] nicely.”
(ECF No. 493-2, PageID.37121.) Because this e-mail was part of a larger
conversation with his colleagues at LAN—who reacted with smileys and
“lol” Id.—it is somewhat probative of LAN’s attitudes towards Flint. On
the other hand, the e-mails are unrelated to LAN’s water engineering
tasks. Because this e-mail presents a closer evidentiary question, the
Court will defer ruling on its admissibility until trial. Parnell v.
Billingslea, No. 17-12560, 2020 WL 99017, at *1 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (courts
should be hesitant to exclude evidence at the in limine stage unless it is
“clearly inadmissible”) (citing Indiana Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 326
F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004)).
3
Case 5:17-cv-10164-JEL-KGA ECF No. 693, PageID.45590 Filed 02/17/22 Page 4 of 4
For the reasons set forth above, LAN’s motion to exclude Jeffrey
Hansen’s e-mails is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED,
Dated: February 17, 2022
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 17, 2022.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
4
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?