Thomas et al v. National College of Virginia, Inc.

Filing 84

ORDER denying 70 Motion in Limine; granting 71 Motion in Limine; denying 72 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 74 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 10/16/12. (jl1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY THOMAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:09cv879

vs.
Magistrate Judge Bowman
NATIONAL COLLEGE OF
VIRGINIA, INC.
Defendant.
ORDER
This civil action is before the Court on Defendant’s motions in limine (Docs. 70,
71, 72) and the parties’ responsive memoranda (75, 76).1
Notably, a ruling on a motion in limine is no more than a preliminary, advisory
opinion which falls entirely within the discretion of the district court. United States v.
Hurd, 7 F.3d 236, 1993 WL 389944, *3 (6th Cir. 1993). The trial court is permitted to
change its ruling during the trial. Id. (citing United States v. Luce, 713 F.2d 1236, 1239
(6th Cir. 1983), aff'd, 469 U.S. 38 (1984)).
Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. A motion
in limine should only be granted where evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose.
A motion in limine should only be granted where evidence is clearly inadmissible for any
purpose. English Woods Civic Ass'n/Resident Cmty. Council v. Cincinnati Metro. Hous.
Auth., 1:03-CV-186, 2004 WL 6043508 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 23, 2004).
Each motion will be addressed in turn.
1

Plaintiffs also filed a motion in limine to exclude two of Defendant’s proposed exhibits
relating to Plaintiff Lummus. Plaintiff’s Lummus’ claims were settled prior to trial and therefore
the motion has been withdrawn.

A. Plaintiffs’ damage claims (Doc. 70)
Defendants ask the Court to limit the evidence or arguments made by Plaintiffs
relating to their damage claims. Specifically, Defendants seek to exclude from trial: 1)
any argument or evidence asserting that Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for loss of
diminution of income while attending National College; and 2) any argument or evidence
that Plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of tuition. (Doc. 70). Defendants contend that
such testimony would be irrelevant to the remaining issues before the Court and would
also be unduly prejudicial to the Defendant.
Upon careful review, the Court finds that Defendant’s arguments are not welltaken.

Plaintiffs’ assert that National College engaged in deceptive practices at

enrollment and throughout the course of their study at National College. Accordingly,
the undersigned finds that such evidence is relevant to this matter. Furthermore,
Defendant’s concerns can be properly addressed upon cross-examination at trial.
Defendant’s motion is therefore DENIED.
B. Plaintiffs’ proposed expert testimony (Doc. 71)
Defendant asks the Court to limit the testimony of Plaintiffs’ proposed expert
witness, Thomas Cody, a vocational expert. Plaintiff did not file a response opposing
the motion. Accordingly, for good cause shown and in the absence of any opposition,
Defendant’s motion is herein GRANTED.

Accordingly, Thomas Cody shall be

prohibited from providing any testimony that any individual Plaintiff suffered any amount
of wage loss.

C. Evidence relating to Plaintiffs employment opportunities (Doc. 72)
Defendant’s final motion asks the Court to limit Plaintiffs’ testimony relating to
their inability to obtain employment. Defendant’s argue that Plaintiff’s intend testify as to
the reasons they were unable to obtain employment after they finished their schooling at
National College. Defendant’s maintain that such testimony will be based solely on
speculation or hearsay in contravention of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
In response to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiffs assert that they should be permitted
present their own testimony as well testimony from other witnesses relating to the
circumstances of their employment applications and their understanding as to why they
were not hired. The undersigned agrees. Defendant’s motion is herein DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge