Summers v. City of Charlotte

Filing 311

ORDER on the Parties' motions in limine 263 and 267 and the Court's prior Order on the Parties' motions in limine 285 (see order for further details) Modified text on 11/18/2022, NEF regenerated (thh).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:18-cv-00612-RJC-DSC
LANCE PATTERSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
Defendant.

Order

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties’ motions in limine and the Court’s
prior Order on the Parties’ motions in limine. (Doc. Nos. 263, 267, & 285).
This matter consists of four separate actions filed by five plaintiffs asserting, among other
things, race discrimination in the Charlotte Fire Department. The Court consolidated the actions
for purposes of discovery. Joint-Plaintiffs Smith-Phifer and Patterson’s jury trial was scheduled
to begin on November 7, 2022. Before trial, the Court ruled on the Parties’ motions in limine.
(Doc. No. 285). On the Friday before trial, both Plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the trial due
to Plaintiff Patterson’s medical issue. The Court granted the motion to continue as to Patterson
and denied the motion to continue as to Plaintiff Smith-Phifer.
As scheduled, Plaintiff Smith-Phifer’s jury trial began on November 7, 2022, which was
ultimately resolved after numerous days without further need from the Court or jury. After
observing the testimony and evidence at Plaintiff Smith-Phifer’s trial, in the interest of providing
the parties with the Court’s rulings ahead of trial, the Court makes the following amendments to
its previous Order (Doc. No. 285) on the Parties’ motions in limine. The Court’s rulings in the
Court’s previous Order (Doc. No. 285) will continue to apply in Plaintiff Patterson’s case to the
1

extent they are not amended herein. Below the Court lists the Parties’ relevant filings by docket
number, a summary of the request, and the Court’s amended ruling.
The Court strongly encourages the Parties to stipulate to any exhibits in which the
authenticity is not reasonably in dispute and to file such stipulation on the first day of trial.

I.

Doc. No.

264; 268

264; 268;
281

OVERLAPPING REQUESTS

Request
Plaintiffs’ Request: The Court should rule that
Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Kurt Geisinger is qualified to
provide expert opinion testimony regarding his
statistical analysis of the promotional process
utilized by Defendant in the 2015-2018 battalion
chief promotional processes.
Defendant’s Request: The Court should exclude
testimony from Plaintiffs’ expert witness Kurt
Geisinger to the extent it is not based on sufficient
facts or data, his report is not the product of reliable
principles and methods, he failed to reliably apply
the principles to the facts of this case, or it otherwise
does not satisfy Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Plaintiffs’ Request: The Court should take judicial
notice of demographic information for the City of
Charlotte based on census data from the United
States Census Bureau.
Defendant’s Request: The Court should exclude
demographic and diversity data including U.S.
Census Bureau data regarding race in Charlotte from
2010 and 2020.

264; 268; Plaintiffs’ Request:
The Court should allow
281
Plaintiffs to introduce deposition testimony of Ron
2

Ruling

Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.
Defendant’s request is GRANTED.
See Doc. No. 310.

Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED IN
PART, if presented in a manner
consistent with Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d
450 (4th Cir.1994). Defendant’s request
is
DENIED
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Court will take
judicial notice of relevant United States
Census Bureau information presented
by Plaintiffs at trial. Carter v. Ball, 33
F.3d 450 (4th Cir.1994); Luh v. J.M.
Huber Corp., 211 Fed. App’x 143 (4th
Cir. 2006); see also United States v.
Cecil, 836 F.2d 1431, 1452 (4th Cir.
1988); Hollinger v. Home State Mut.
Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564, 571-72 (5th Cir.
2011).
As to Ron Carlee’s deposition,
Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

Doc. No.

Request
Ruling
Carlee and Sheila Simpson from Eschert v. City of Defendant’s request is GRANTED.
Charlotte.
After hearing the presentation of Ron
Carlee’s depositions in Plaintiff SmithDefendant’s Request: The Court should exclude Phifer’s trial in the context of her
deposition testimony, trial transcripts from Eschert claims, the Court finds the entirety of
v. City of Charlotte.
the testimony irrelevant. Any minimal
relevance the testimony may have is
substantially outweighed by unfair
prejudice, confusing the issues, and
wasting time. Fed. R. Evid. 401; Fed. R.
Evid. 407; Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Additionally,
after
hearing
the
testimony at Smith-Phifer’s trial, the
Court will not permit testimony related
to or any inquiry from any witnesses
into the Management Partners’ work.
After hearing the testimony at SmithPhifer’s trial, the Court concludes the
testimony is inadmissible as a
subsequent remedial measure. Fed. R.
Evid. 407.

As to Sheila Simpson’s deposition,
Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.
Defendant’s request is GRANTED. If
Sheila Simpson is available to testify,
the Court will not permit the use of her
repetitive and cumulative deposition
testimony while also requiring the jury
to sit through her lengthy trial
testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 611. If Sheila
Simpson is not available to testify at the
trial, the Court may reconsider this
ruling.
As to Ron Carlee’s deposition, for the
reasons detailed above, Plaintiff’s
Plaintiffs’ Request:
The Court should allow
request is DENIED.
Defendant’s
Plaintiffs to introduce deposition testimony of Ron
request is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid.
Carlee and Brian Schweitzer.
268; 271401; Fed. R. Evid. 407; Fed. R. Evid.
12
403.
Defendant’s Request: The Court should exclude
deposition testimony of Ron Carlee & Brian
As to Brian Schweitzer, subject to any
Schweitzer.
Court rulings on specific objections,
Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED.
3

Doc. No.

Request

Plaintiffs’ Request: The Court should allow Plaintiff
to introduce evidence dated before 2015, including
specifically from Plaintiffs’ exhibit list exhibits 14,
24, 43, 44, 10, 23, and 49, as background information
supporting Plaintiffs’ claims or as evidence showing
264; 268; a pattern and practice of discrimination.
281
Defendant’s Request: The Court should exclude
evidence of events prior to 2015, specifically
documents related to the 2006-2014 promotional
processes and seven comparator witnesses related to
the promotional processes between 2009 and 2014.

4

Ruling
Defendant’s request is DENIED. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4)(B).
Defendant’s request is GRANTED IN
PART and Plaintiff’s request is
GRANTED IN PART. After hearing
the presentation of evidence in Plaintiff
Smith-Phifer’s trial in the context of her
claims, the Court will permit Plaintiff to
present evidence related only to the
Battalion Chief promotional processes,
including the handling of complaints
and grievances related to the Battalion
Chief promotional processes, beginning
in 2007. Fed. R. Evid. 401; Fed. R.
Evid. 403.

II.
Doc. No.
264

264

264

264; 281

264; 281

DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS
Request
The Court should exclude any testimony from
Plaintiff’s expert witness Kurt Geisinger as it relates
to Plaintiffs’ claims before 2015 and after 2018.

Ruling
GRANTED. See Doc. No. 310.

The Court’s ruling on the exclusion of
The Court should exclude testimony from Plaintiff’s Dr. Moira Artigues at the Smith-Phifer
expert witness Dr. Moira Artigues.
trial will also apply in Plaintiff
Patterson’s trial. Written order to follow.
The Court should exclude testimony from Plaintiffs’
expert witnesses until a sufficient foundation for
See the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s
their expertise has been established and a sufficient
expert witnesses above.
factual foundation for the expert witnesses’ opinions
has been established.
The Court should exclude 14 potential witnesses that
were not previously disclosed by Plaintiffs in either
their Rule 26 Initial Disclosures or supplements
The Court’s ruling remains the same
Rule 26 disclosures. Those witnesses are: Pam
except as to Nick Delacanal for the
Barkley, Kevin Coppage, Vicki Foster, Austin
limited purpose of authenticating an
Nantz, Lee Belton, Nick Delacanal, Victoria
exhibit. See Doc. No. 285.
Johnson, Glenn Jones, Tommy McClain, Gary
McCormick, Jerry Newfarmer, Harry Peyton,
Mechelle Price, and Greg Sharpe.
GRANTED. Plaintiffs asserted that they
intended to admit a single exhibit that is
a recording or interview with the Fire
The Court should exclude all newspaper articles and Chief. After conducting an in camera
news stories.
review of the interview, the Court finds
the statements in the interview are
irrelevant to Plaintiff Patterson’s claims.
Fed. R. Evid. 401; Fed. R. Evid. 403.

5

SO ORDERED.

Signed: November 18, 2022

6