Nave v. LeFlore School District 20 et al

Filing 129

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West granting 104 Motion in Limine on issues enumerated as Nos. 1 and 2, and partially granted as reflected on issue No. 3. (adw, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SHELBY NAVE,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
NO. 20 OF LEFLORE COUNTY a/k/a
PANAMA PUBLIC SCHOOLS;
RYAN ENGLAND, individually
and in his official capacity;
and GRANT RALLS, individually
and in his official capacity,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-096-KEW

OPINION AND ORDER
This

matter

comes

before

the

Court

on

School

District

Defendants’ First Motion in Limine (Docket Entry #104). Defendants
seek to exclude the following from trial:
1) Evidence or testimony that Defendant Ryan England may have had
an inappropriate romantic or sexual relationship with any student
other than Nave while England was employed by the School District
– Plaintiff testified in her deposition that a fellow female
student, MA, informed her that she was also have a relationship
with Defendant England.

The School District Defendants contend

that any relations that occurred between England and MA were not
reported to the School District and MA never came forward and
accused England of improper conduct with her.

For these reasons,

the School District Defendants assert the references to MA’s
alleged sexual contact with England is highly prejudicial and not

relevant to the claims asserted by Nave in this action.
Nave contends the statements concerning MA’s conduct with
England is relevant to this action because (1) another student
identified as HH stated during a forensic interview that there were
rumors of such a relationship and a lot of people knew about it,
(2) it demonstrates the School District’s adverse action toward
Nave was a pretext for discrimination, (3) rumors may be enough to
show a substantial risk to students, (4) it demonstrates the School
District acted with deliberate indifference, (5) it is relevant to
Nave’s § 1983 claim for having a policy of failing to investigate
sexual harassment, and (6) it shows the School District had a
policy

of

deliberate

indifference

toward

providing

adequate

training.
The

evidence

of

a

relationship

with

MA

is

undoubtedly

prejudicial and only tenuously relevant to the claims brought by
Nave.

At its heart, the problem with the evidence of MA’s conduct

with England is that, unlike Nave, no evidence has been developed
to show that an appropriate person or a policymaker had any
knowledge of circumstances of a substantial risk to students
associated with MA’s relationship with England.

Even in regard to

alleged “rumors” of a relationship, Nave has not shown that a
person associated with the School District had any knowledge of the
relationship.

It is simply too speculative to allow the jury to

assume that an appropriate person or policymaker with the School

2

District was one of “a lot of people” who knew of the relationship.
Should Nave have further evidence of specific knowledge or notice
to the School District of MA’s alleged relationship with England,
the Court will revisit the issue at trial.

Otherwise, no witness

or

trial

other

evidence

will

be

presented

at

to

reveal

the

relationship.
2) Nave should be precluded from introducing evidence that England
took one or more high school boys to a strip club during a schoolsponsored trip - These allegations were uncovered during the
criminal investigation conducted by Panama Chief of Police John
Whiteaker. Whiteaker found that England took some male students to
two strip clubs during a trip then submitted a purchase order for
$110.00 which exceeded the attached receipt for $89.00 from the
hotel.

The purchase order was approved by Principal Haynes.

The

School District Defendants state that it has not been alleged that
the School District approved or condoned England’s actions or
showed any actual knowledge of sexual harassment on the part of the
School District.
Nave contends the allegations are relevant to both the Title
IX claim and § 1983 claim asserting that had the School District
investigated
propensity
harassment.

the

to

charges,

place
Again,

it

students
Nave

would
at

asserts

have

discovered

substantial
a

tenuous

risk
and

England’s
of

sexual

speculative

connection between the allegations of taking students to strip

3

clubs and the School District’s knowledge. Nothing in the evidence
supports a finding that had the School District inquired as to a
$21.00 discrepancy in a billing, it would have discovered England
was creating a substantial risk to students.

The evidence is more

prejudicial than probative and not relevant to the claims asserted
by Nave in this action.
3)

Nave should be precluded from presenting evidence that England

pled “no contest” to criminal charges arising from his sexual
relationship with Nave - The School District Defendants contend
such evidence is precluded under Fed. R. Evid. 410 which expressly
states that nolo contendere pleas are inadmissible “against the
defendant

who

discussions.”

made

the

plea

or

participated

in

the

plea

Nave seeks to introduce such evidence to show the

School District Defendants maintained a policy of acquiescing in
sexual harassment when Defendant Ralls stated that he would still
give England a job recommendation.

In support, Nave cites to a

Ninth Circuit case, Brewer v. City of Napa, 210 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir.
2000)

in

which

evidence

of

the

conviction

was

admitted

for

impeachment purposes under Fed. R. Evid. 609 when the convictions
were arrived at through a nolo contendere pleas. This Court agrees
with this and other circuit courts which permit the admission of
the conviction.
admitted

in

The fact England pled “no contest” need not be

order

to

admit

the

fact

represented in the Judgment and Sentence.

4

of

the

conviction

as

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that School District Defendants’ First
Motion in Limine (Docket Entry #104) is hereby GRANTED on issues
enumerated

above

as

Nos.

1

and

2,

and

partially

granted

reflected above on issue No. 3.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of December, 2018.

______________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

as