Kendel v. Local 17-A United Food and Commercial Workers et al

Filing 150

Memorandum Opinion and Order Defendant Local 17-A's Objection to Plaintiff's Witness List (ECF No. 96 ) is sustained. Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Racial Comments is granted (ECF No. 122 ). Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #1 (To Exclude Defendant's Dismissed Counterclaim Involving Social Security Numbers) (ECF No. 123 ) is granted. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #2 (To Exclude Any Court Orders, Verdicts and Opinions from Case No. 5:05cv1999 [NDOH]) (ECF No. 124 ) is granted. Defendant's Motion to Take Judicial Notice (ECF NO. 110 ) of an Order issued in Case No. 5:09cv1999 is denied. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #3 (To Exclude Invoking Attorney-Client Privilege to the issue of the Authorization of Retaliatory Counterclaim and Reason(s) for Said Claim) (ECF No. 125 ) is to be taken up outside of the hearing of the jury. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #4 (To Allow Her to Introduce Into Evidence Defendant's Policy with Hudson Insurance) (ECF No. 126 ) is granted. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #5 (To Exclude Plaintiff's Previous Trial Testimony) (ECF No. 127 ) is denied. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 6/25/2012. (S,L)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TINA KENDEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOCAL 17-A UNITED FOOD AND
COMMERCIAL WORKERS, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02300

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER (Resolving ECF Nos. 110, 122,
123, 124, 126, 127)

Before the Court are various motions regarding the upcoming trial in this matter. The
Court’s rulings which have been indicated orally are issued below.
1. Defendant Local 17-A’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Witness List (ECF No. 96) is
sustained. Plaintiff will not be permitted, during her case-in-chief to call the eleven (11)
witnesses identified in ECF No. 96.
2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Racial Comments is granted (ECF No.
122). The Courts notes Plaintiff’s acknowledgment that she had not intended to introduce
evidence of racial comments, ECF No. 145.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #1 (To Exclude Defendant’s Dismissed Counterclaim
Involving Social Security Numbers) (ECF No. 123) is granted. The Court notes Defendant’s
acknowledgment that it had not intended to introduce evidence concerning the dismissed
counterclaim, ECF No. 130.

(5:10-cv-02300)
4. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #2 (To Exclude Any Court Orders, Verdicts and Opinions
from Case No. 5:05cv1999 [NDOH]) (ECF No. 124) is granted. As the Court indicated during
the telephone conference held on June 22, 2012, the Court intends, to the extent legally
practicable, to exclude the admission of evidence related to the discrimination/hostile work
environment case, i.e. Case No. 5:05cv1999. Continuing in this vein, the Court denies
Defendant’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice (ECF NO. 110) of an Order issued in Case No.
5:09cv1999. In addition to the reasons stated herein and those made by Plaintiff, the Court
believes the motion itself is faulty. Federal Rule of Evidence 201(d) mandates that judicial
notice be taken only when the court is “supplied with the necessary information.” The Order
attached to the motion, ECF No. 110-1, is insufficient in that it does not provide this Court with
pertinent information such as the specific conduct found to be sanctionable and the amount or
type of sanction imposed.
5. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #3 (To Exclude Invoking Attorney-Client Privilege to the
issue of the Authorization of Retaliatory Counterclaim and Reason(s) for Said Claim) (ECF No.
125) is to be taken up outside of the hearing of the jury. The record before the Court (ECF Nos.
125, 132, and 140) has not persuaded the Court that evidence of the Conversion Counterclaim
filed in Case No. Case No. 5:05cv1999 should be admitted when the Court has ruled that,
generally, evidence of that case will not be admitted. No question shall be put to a witness that is
intended to invoke the attorney client privilege without further discussion with the Court.

2

(5:10-cv-02300)
6. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #4 (To Allow Her to Introduce Into Evidence
Defendant’s Policy with Hudson Insurance) (ECF No. 126) is granted. Plaintiff is cautioned that
this evidence may be used only within the boundaries established by Federal Rule of Evidence
411, that is, to prove bias or prejudice, for example, not to prove that Defendant acted
wrongfully.
7. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #5 (To Exclude Plaintiff’s Previous Trial Testimony)
(ECF No. 127) is denied. Defendant will be permitted to use Plaintiff’s prior testimony for
impeachment purposes as specified in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d). At this time, the Court
denies the specific request of Defendant “to question Plaintiff Kendel regarding the false
evidence that she created in order to establish her original discrimination charge.” ECF No. 134.
It is not clear to the Court how, whether as impeachment or otherwise, Defendant intends to
pursue this line of questioning. Therefore, Defense counsel must seek an explicit ruling before
asking this line of questioning.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 25, 2012
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

3