Smith v. Oklahoma County Board of County Commissioners et al
Filing
141
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 114 Motion in Limine; granting 116 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 120 Motion in Limine. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 2/7/2013. (mb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CYRUS M. SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BOARD OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF OKLAHOMA
COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-10-782-D
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine [Dkt. # 116] and Defendant Board
of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County’s (the “Board”) Motion in Limine [Dkt.
# 114], which are at issue.1
A.
Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine
Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence and argument in four subject areas: (1) Plaintiffs’
Dismissal and Notice of Rights letters from the EEOC; (2) allegedly unrelated incidents that
occurred in 2004 involving Danny Beal, a nonparty to this suit; (3) hypothetical factual
scenarios designed to elicit testimony related to Plaintiffs’ moral character; and (4) Plaintiffs’
employment of attorneys and the potential for payment of attorney’s fees and costs.
1
Defendant Brian Maughan’s Motion in Limine [Dkt. # 120] has become moot due to Plaintiff’s
voluntary dismissal of Defendant Maughan in his individual capacity. See Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With
Prejudice of Plaintiffs’ Individual Claims Against Brian Maughan Only [Doc. No. 134].
The Court rules that the County may not introduce evidence of the EEOC’s Dismissal
and Notice of Rights letters regarding Plaintiffs’ charges of discrimination because these
documents, though relevant, are more prejudicial than probative within the meaning of
Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In reaching this conclusion, the Court notes that
the documents are form letters notifying each plaintiff that the EEOC was closing its file on
his charge and that federal law permitted the filing of a lawsuit within 90 days. The only
determination stated was: “Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude
that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes.” See Pls.’ Motion, Ex. 1
[Doc. No. 116-1]. The letters expressly state: “This does not certify that the respondent is
in compliance with the statutes.” Id. That is, the EEOC essentially decided to make no
determination at all, and provided no explanation of its decision. Thus, the Court finds that
the letters lack probative value and the Board’s proposed use of them – as “[e]vidence that
the EEOC finds no case” – would have a prejudicial effect. See Def. Board’s Resp. Br. [Doc.
No. 126] at 2. Other courts have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Coleman v. Quaker
Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1284 (9th Cir. 2000) (“when [EEOC] letters report ‘bare
conclusions,’ they have little probative value”); Cortes v. Maxus Exploration Co., 977 F.2d
195, 202 (5th Cir. 1992) (upholding exclusion of EEOC’s “no probable cause” determination
because the possible prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value); Williams v. Nashville
Network, 132 F.3d 1123, 1129 (6th Cir. 1997) (upholding exclusion of EEOC’s “probable
cause” determination because it lacked probative value).
2
Additionally, the Board may not introduce evidence related to the 2004 incident
involving Mr. Beal or an investigation of Mr. Beal by the Department of Environmental
Quality.2 Plaintiffs were not involved in the 2004 incident nor any environmental violation
by Mr. Beal, and the Board has failed to articulate how these matters are relevant to the trial
issues in this case. The Court finds that such evidence is irrelevant under Rule 401 regarding
the issues for which the Board apparently intends to offer it, that is, whether Commissioner
Maughan’s decision to terminate Plaintiffs five years later for unrelated conduct was
discriminatory.3 Accordingly, evidence regarding these matters is not admissible, pursuant
to Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Likewise irrelevant under Rule 401 are Plaintiffs’ responses to hypothetical fact
questions posed during their depositions concerning their general understanding of morality.
Plaintiffs’ responses to such hypothetical questions have no bearing on the termination
decision which underlies this lawsuit or the credibility of Plaintiffs’ testimony. Accordingly,
the Court finds testimony of this nature to be inadmissible.
Finally, the Court finds that evidence of the circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’
employment of their attorneys and the potential for recovery of attorney’s fees is irrelevant
2
The Court notes that the latter issue concerns exhibits listed in the Final Pretrial Report by
Defendant Maughan, who has now been dismissed. See supra note 1. Thus, it is unclear whether this
evidence remains pertinent. Because the Board opposes Plaintiff’s Motion on this issue, however, the Court
will address it.
3
The Board’s argument on this issue suggests there is evidence that “some of the plaintiffs” were
involved in dumping dirt on Mr. Beal’s property and this conduct may have been a factor in Commissioner
Maughan’s termination decision regarding these plaintiffs. Any such evidence would, of course, be relevant
to the trial issues.
3
to any issue to be decided by the jury. Thus, any evidence regarding these subjects is also
inadmissible.
B.
The Board’s Motions in Limine
The Board seeks to exclude evidence and argument in three subject areas: (1) other
lawsuits; (2) “miceallaneous [sic] complaints”; and (3) OESC rulings. Plaintiffs respond that
they do not intend to offer evidence of other lawsuits or of OESC rulings unless Defendant
opens the door to such testimony. Accordingly, the Court grants the Board’s Motion as to
these issues. With respect to OESC evidence, the Court notes that the Board objects only to
admission of the OESC rulings themselves, and this Order excluding evidence and argument
is similarly limited. The Court does not address, as unnecessary to a ruling on the Board’s
Motion, Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the admissibility of other OESC evidence.4
With respect to the remaining issue raised by the Board regarding miscellaneous
complaints Plaintiffs may have lodged against District 2, the Court finds that the Motion
should be denied as impermissibly vague and unduly broad. The Board seeks to exclude
evidence of Plaintiffs’ “individual general complaints about the manner in which District 2
operated on a day-to-day basis.” See Def. Board’s Motion [Doc. No. 114] at 2. The
admissibility of this broad and undefined category of evidence cannot be evaluated in
4
Specifically, the Court intimates no view regarding whether evidence that the Board falsely
contested Plaintiffs’ claims for unemployment benefits might be admissible to show pretext or bad faith, see,
e.g., Canady v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 970 F.2d 710, 712 (10th Cir. 1992), or whether portions of the
OESC record may be admissible for some purposes. See, e.g., Gabbert v. Board of Review for OESC, 943
P.2d 158, 160 n.6 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997) (“Sworn statements produced in the OESC record . . . are not
precluded for impeachment use in a separate or subsequent proceeding.”).
4
advance of trial. Accordingly, the Board’s Motion is DENIED as to this issue, which should
be the subject of specific, contemporaneous objections to particular evidence at trial.
C. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court rules as follows:
•
Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine [Dkt. # 116] are GRANTED, as stated herein.
•
The Board’s Motion in Limine [Dkt. # 114] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part, as set forth herein. Plaintiffs may not offer evidence or argument concerning
other lawsuits involving the Board or concerning OESC rulings. Any necessary
rulings on the admissibility of evidence regarding Plaintiffs’ general, operational
complaints will be made at trial upon timely objection.
•
Defendant Maughan’s Motion in Limine [Dkt. # 120] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2013.
5
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?