Rideout v. Allstate Insurance, Inc.

Filing 145

ORDER denying 111 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 113 Motion in Limine; denying 115 Motion in Limine; denying 117 Motion in Limine; denying 119 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 121 Motion in Limine; granting 125 Motion in Limine; denying 126 Motion in Limine; granting 128 Motion in Limine; denying 129 Motion in Limine. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 11/20/2013. (lpm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
PAMELA RIDEOUT

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO.: 2:11CV222-MPM-JMV

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Pending before the court are eight motions in limine filed by defendant [Doc. 111, Doc. 113,
Doc. 115, Doc. 117, Doc. 119, Doc. 121, Doc. 125, Doc. 126] and two motions in limine filed by
plaintiff [Doc. 128, Doc. 129]. The parties have responded in opposition to each motion. Upon due
consideration, the court finds the motions to be granted in part and denied in part.
The court reminds counsel that motions in limine are useful procedural devices which, when
appropriate, are helpful to clarify evidentiary issues at trial. These motions are most useful when the
evidence sought to be excluded is such that an objection at trial would not serve to remove any prejudice
to the objecting party.
However, some motions in limine are almost invariably improper, such as those which seek to
have this court reiterate a well-settled rule of evidence (such as the rule against introducing evidence of
settlement negotiations) or to repeat a ruling which it has already made. It is not this court’s role to
restate rules of law which are already clear enough, and it has repeatedly dismissed or stricken motions
which seek to have it reiterate such rules.
With these considerations in mind, the court will now address the motions in limine which have
been filed in this case.

Defendant’s Motions in Limine
Allstate seeks to prevent Rideout from introducing evidence of purported arrest records or prior
bad acts of some of the independent agents who worked with Rideout. Allstate argues the prior arrest
records are inadmissible character evidence and the agents’ bad acts are irrelevant to the discrimination
case filed by Ms. Rideout. However, these records are not used by plaintiff to prove anything about the
particular agent’s character or to show the agents acted in accordance with the character on a particular
occasion. Rideout argues that being placed with these “bad” agents bolsters her ability to show the
motivations of the relevant actors at Allstate to “force her out” and their discriminatory practices during
her employment. Rideout contends that by assigning agents to her, Allstate did not give her a chance to
succeed. The prior arrests and bad acts are relevant to Rideout’s claims if she can show that Allstate
knew, or should have known, of the agents’ record prior to assigning her to the agents.
The court therefore denies Allstate’s motion to exclude evidence relating to the agents’ acts, but
is also wary of plaintiff’s ability to admit this evidence, which, to the court seems to be simply hearsay.
Next, Allstate moves the court to exclude evidence regarding damages incurred by Rideout after
Rideout had commenced new employment. This court’s previous order [Doc. 144] granted summary
judgment to Allstate on plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim and therefore this motion is now moot.
Allstate’s motions to exclude evidence and arguments that relate to claims dismissed by the court
on summary judgment and time barred claims are not a proper use of motions in limine and therefore
will be denied. These motions are not well-taken, and the court cautions counsel for Allstate that a
motion in limine is not the proper avenue to supplement a motion for summary judgment nor is it proper
to encourage the court to rule on a pending motion via a motion in limine.
The court also denies Allstate’s two motions to exclude irrelevant, speculative and hearsay
evidence, including plaintiff’s own testimony and notes. The court is fully capable of applying general

2

and well-known principles of the Federal Rules of Evidence during the course of the trial and the
admissibility of such evidence will be determined by the testimony elicited during trial.
Allstate further filed a motion in limine to exclude summary evidence, and in particular, a
diagram made by Rideout that was attached to her response to Allstate’s motion for summary judgment.
Allstate moves to exclude the diagram based on FRE 10061 and Rideout not producing the documents
relied on by her to create the diagram. Rideout responded she “simply did not attach [the documents] to
her filings to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because they were too voluminous and would
have made those filings unwieldy.” The court trusts that counsel for plaintiff and defendant will be able
to resolve this issue as it relates to the admission of plaintiff’s diagram prior to trial and therefore will
hold ruling on this particular motion in abeyance.
The court next turns to Allstate’s motion to prevent Rideout, her attorney, and witnesses from
referring to Allstate’s financial status and net worth. Plaintiff, inexplicably, responded in opposition to
this motion. The financial status and net worth of defendant is irrelevant to this matter, and is highly
prejudicial. Therefore, this motion will be granted.
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
Plaintiff moves the court to prohibit defendant from referencing her conviction for stealing.
Rideout was convicted in 1988 of stealing from Sears, Roebuck & Company when she was seventeen
years of age. Allstate contends that plaintiff’s prior criminal conviction for stealing is clearly probative
of her credibility and defendant intends to present such evidence to demonstrate plaintiff has a history of
untruthfulness.

1

The proponent may use a summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or
photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court. The proponent must make the originals or duplicates available
for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. And the court may order the proponent
to produce them in court. Fed. R. Evid. 1006

3

Allstate claims that Rideout has a “history” of untruthfulness because of her conviction in 1988
and her deceitfulness in collecting a paycheck from her new employer, Jabil, while still employed by
Allstate. Although it is evident that plaintiff did work for Jabil while at the same time still being paid by
Allstate, the court determines a childish act of stealing over twenty five years ago, when plaintiff was
seventeen years old and to which she plead guilty, is more prejudicial than it is probative in this
particular cause of action. Therefore, defendant is precluded from referencing in any way plaintiff’s
conviction for stealing in 1988.
Plaintiff’s second motion in limine seeks to prevent defendant from entering documents that
plaintiff “accidently” submitted to defendant during discovery. The documents referenced are emails
that plaintiff had previously forwarded to her own counsel. Rideout argues that entering these emails
into evidence will result in unfair prejudice to her. In the alternative, plaintiff requests that plaintiff’s
counsel’s name be redacted from the documents. Allstate has agreed to redact plaintiff’s truly privileged
communications and her counsel’s name from any exhibit it intends to use at trial, therefore this motion
will be denied, with the understanding that proper redaction will occur prior to trial.
THEREFORE, Docs. 111, 115, 117, 119, 126, and 129 are DENIED. Doc. 113 is DENIED as
moot. Doc. 121 is held in abeyance. Docs. 125 and 128 are GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED this the 20th day of November, 2013.

/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

4