LUCAS v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Filing 91

DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING, IN PART, AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE CLAIM (DOC. # 71 ). Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 10/1/2020. (kma)

(D.Kan.1998); accord Sper ber g v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712
(6th Cir.1975). A ruling in limine should not be made unless the moving party
meets its burden of showing that the evidence in question is clearly inadmissible.
See Indiana Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D.Ohio 2004);
Koch, 2 Fed. Supp. 1388. If this high standard is not met, evidentiary rulings

should be deferred so that the issues may be resolved in the context of the trial.
Indiana Ins. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d at 846. Because this standard is not met at this

time, the Court overrules this portion of Defendant's motion. If the Court is
incorrect in its premise concerning Dr. Plumb, the defense may file a motion for
reconsideration on this point.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Defendant's Motion in Limine
to Exclude Failure to Accommodate Claim, Doc. #71, is sustained in part and
overruled in part. Defendant's motion to exclude evidence, testimony and any
reference to Plaintiff's now-dismissed failure to accommodate claim against UPS
is SUSTAINED. Defendant's motion to exclude evidence and testimony from
Plaintiff concerning any testimony or evidence by Plaintiff, or statement by his
counsel, related to whether: (1) Plaintiff had a need to urinate frequently; (2) this
alleged need to urinate frequently was due to his diabetes; and (3) a UPS
supervisor instructed Plaintiff to use the drain to accommodate his alleged need
to urinate frequently is OVERRULED.

5

(tp - per Judge Rice authorization after his
review)