Vaughn et al v. Titan International Inc.

Filing 79

Memorandum Opinion and Order : Motion to exclude witness testimony of Richardson, Smith, Martinez, Swan, and Carr (Doc. No. 62) is denied. Motion to exclude subsequent layoff evidence (Doc. No. 63) is granted in part and denied in part. Motion to exclude evidence of commitment to veterans (Doc. No. 64) is denied without prejudice as premature. Motion to exclude testimony of intimate/personal relationship (Doc. No. 65) is denied without prejudice. Motion to exclude evidence of Vaughn's termination and lawsuit (Doc. No. 66) is denied. (Related Doc # 62 )(Related Doc # 63 ); (Related Doc # 64 )(Related Doc # 65 )(Related Doc # 66 ). Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 3/23/2015.(S,AL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Shirley Vaughn, et al.,

Case No. 3: 13 cv 409
Plaintiffs

v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Titan International Inc., et al.,
Defendants
This matter is before me on multiple motions in limine filed by the remaining Plaintiff, Kyle
Metz. The Defendants have filed separate responses to each of the liminal motions. This Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
LIMINAL MOTION STANDARD
While not explicitly addressed in the Federal Rules of Evidence or Civil Procedure, motions
in limine “may be directed toward barring specified evidence or argument and may be based on any
of the grounds available under the Federal Rules of Evidence.” 3 JAMES WM. MOORE, MOORE’S
FEDERAL PRACTICE § 16.77[4][d][ii] (3d ed. 2013). The practice of liminal rulings “has developed
pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984).
Motions in limine are generally used to ensure evenhanded and expeditious management of
trials as the “prudent use of the in limine motion sharpens the focus of later trial proceedings and
permits the parties to focus their preparation on those matters that will be considered by the jury.”
Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). The court has the

power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential
grounds. Luce, supra.
The party moving to exclude evidence has the burden of establishing the inadmissibility of
the evidence for any purpose. Mason v. City of Chicago, 631 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1056 (N.D. Ill.
2009)(citation omitted). The trial court is afforded broad discretion in such a ruling, Branham v.
Thomas Cooley Law Sch., 689 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2012), or its decision to defer ruling until the
evidence unfolds at trial. Graves v. District of Columbia, 850 F.Supp.2d 6, 11 (D.D.C. 2011) (citations
omitted).
Denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the
motion will be admitted at trial. Denial merely means that without the context of trial, the court is
unable to determine whether the evidence in question should be excluded. The court will entertain
objections on individual proffers as they arise at trial, even though the proffer falls within the scope
of a denied motion in limine. See United States v. Connelly, 874 F.2d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 1989) (citation
omitted).
The Supreme Court has noted the provisional nature of liminal rulings as “the judge may
always change his mind during the course of trial.” Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3
(2000) (citation omitted). Where the evidence unfolds different from the proffer, sufficient to cause
the issue to be revisited, the court is “free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a
previous in limine ruling.” Luce, 460 U.S. at 41-42.
With this background in mind, I now turn to the individual motions in limine.
DISCUSSION
Testimony of Scott Richardson, Daren Smith, John Martinez, Scott Swan and Carrie Carr.
Plaintiff seeks to exclude the testimony of the afore-mentioned individuals because they
were not listed in the Defendants’ initial disclosures nor did the Defendants supplement their
2

disclosure of witnesses. One month before the trial date of February 23, 2015, Defendants listed
these five individuals as witnesses.
The Defendants’ response indicates that all of these individuals were named during the
course of discovery as persons involved or having potential knowledge related to the allegations in
this litigation.
In this case, the trial date was vacated and is now set for May 4, 2015. Any potential harm
was eliminated when the trial date was vacated on February 20, 2015. (Doc. No. 75). Moreover, as
I noted during our recent telephonic status call, the extension of the trial date allows time for some
additional, limited discovery, as necessary. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion in limine regarding
witnesses Richardson, Smith, Martinez, Swan, and Carr (Doc. No. 62) is denied.
Testimony Regarding Subsequent Layoffs
In the second motion in limine, Plaintiff requests the exclusion of statements, testimony,
references, exhibits, or other evidence related to the Defendants’ position that Kyle Metz would
have been part of a subsequent layoff under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403, 602; 701 and Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a) and (e) and 37(c). The Plaintiff states that there is no information or evidence on the record
which would have put him on notice of this defense. Moreover, it is undisputed the Defendants did
not have a protocol, such as seniority, upon which they based a layoff for salaried employees.
The Defendants dispute that they failed to make a proper disclosure under Rule 26(a) as that
is not required under the rule but note that they asserted such a defense in their Amended Answer.
(Doc. No. 9 at ¶ 21). They also argue that evidence of the company’s declining financial position is
relevant as are subsequent layoffs relevant on the issue of whether Metz was terminated as part of a
larger layoff.

3

While I agree that the company’s financial picture and its layoffs are relevant to its defense
that Metz’s termination was part of a reduction-in-force, testimony or the suggestion that Metz
would have been chosen for the next round of layoffs is speculative given the lack of a specific
protocol on how salaried individuals were chosen to be laid off. The witnesses can certainly testify
to the events relative to the December 2012 lay off but may not opine on what their position may
have been with respect to Mr. Metz and future lay offs.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion on this issue (Doc. No. 63) is denied in part and granted in
part.
Testimony Regarding Commitment to or Treatment of U.S. Veterans
In his third motion in limine, the Plaintiff seeks to preclude testimony by Defendants’
witnesses as “to the company’s commitment to veterans of the United States military,” per the
Defendants’ witness disclosure. Plaintiff contends this testimony is not relevant to the
determination of whether his selection for a lay off or termination was influenced by his reservist
duties. Plaintiff equates the “company’s commitment to veterans” as tantamount to character
evidence whose probative value is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
In response, the Defendants state that the lawsuit is brought against three related companies,
one of which employs a fair number of veterans and reservists. The fact that Defendants employ
veterans and reservists and that some of the individual actors in this case may occupy that status is
relevant to the claims at issue. The Defendants then state “[w]hatever else Plaintiff reads into the
preliminary witness disclosure statement simply does not exist.” (Doc. No. 68 at p. 2).
While I agree that facts supporting the Defendants’ employment of reservists is a matter
which can be presented to the jury, presentation of such evidence will not be allowed to become the

4

character evidence alluded to by Plaintiffs. At this juncture, I will deny the motion (Doc. No. 64)
without prejudice.
Testimony Regarding an Alleged Intimate/Personal Relationship Between Plaintiff Kyle
Metz and Shirley Vaughn
Plaintiff also requests exclusion of testimony by HR employee Carrie Carr, whose witness
disclosure summary states she will testify to the “alleged intimate/personal relationship between
Kyle Metz and Shirley Vaughn as well as the nature and scope of training Vaughn gave Metz upon
his promotion to Supervisor.” (Doc. No. 62-1, p. 4). The Plaintiff states that any testimony from
Carr on Vaughn and Metz’s relationship would be hearsay.
In response, Defendants contend that while Vaughn is no longer a party to this litigation,
she is named as a witness and her credibility, including her bias, will be at issue if she testifies at trial.
Additionally, Carr’s testimony will be offered only if Vaughn testifies and both these individuals will
be subject to cross-examination.
As this issue is somewhat premature, I will deny this motion (Doc. No. 65), without
prejudice.
Testimony Related to Shirley Vaughn’s Termination and Lawsuit
In his final motion in limine, Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence related to Shirley Vaughn’s
termination and lawsuit as inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and 403. It is Plaintiff’s contention
that testimony on these issues will create a mini-trial and will cause confusion outweighing any
probative value.
Not surprisingly, Defendants argue the facts surrounding Vaughn’s termination are not
relevant but the fact that Vaughn was terminated is probative of her credibility and bias. Vaughn

5

and Metz filed their claims in one lawsuit and given the status of Vaughn’s case now pending in the
Sixth Circuit, the jury can consider these facts in assessing her credibility and bias.
Assuming Vaughn testifies, I agree that assessing her credibility is for the trier of fact. The
jury is entitled to know Vaughn was employed by the Defendants, was terminated, and that her case
is on appeal, but nothing more. The details behind Vaughn’s case are not relevant to Metz’s trial
and a limiting instruction will guide the jury on that issue. Therefore, at this juncture, I will deny
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 66).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions in limine are adjudicated as follows:


Motion to exclude witness testimony of Richardson, Smith, Martinez, Swan, and Carr (Doc.
No. 62) is denied;



Motion to exclude subsequent layoff evidence (Doc. No. 63) is granted in part and denied in
part;



Motion to exclude evidence of commitment to veterans (Doc. No. 64) is denied without
prejudice as premature;



Motion to exclude testimony of intimate/personal relationship (Doc. No. 65) is denied
without prejudice; and



Motion to exclude evidence of Vaughn’s termination and lawsuit (Doc. No. 66) is denied.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge

6