Wilks v. BNSF Railway Company

Filing 259

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West granting 153 Motion in Limine. (adw, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA SAMANTHA WILKS, Plaintiff, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-18-080-KEW O R D E R This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Twelfth Motion in Limine (Docket Entry #153). Defendant BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”) seeks to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence or argument on BNSF’s alleged practice producing a list of BNSF employees dismissal. it was “targeting” or “blacklisting” for The source of this information was David Rangel – an expert employed by Plaintiff - quoting two of his sons who were former employees of BNSF. By prior Opinion and Order, Mr. Rangel’s testimony has been excluded from the trial of this case as failing to meet the rigors of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Certainly, such evidence is irrelevant to the issues of this case under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and its unfair prejudice that it imposes upon BNSF is outweighed by any probative value of such evidence. Moreover, the foundation for its existence is unduly suspect. 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Twelfth Motion in Limine (Docket Entry #153) is hereby GRANTED, in relation to any evidence or argument pertaining to BNSF’s alleged “targeting” or “blacklisting” of its employees. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2021. ______________________________ KIMBERLY E. WEST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?