RALPH ROMANTINE v. CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC.

Filing 115

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 106 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to exclude portions of deposition testimony designated by Defendant. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 2/27/2012. (hmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYL VANIA

Ralph Romantine,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 09-973

AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION

AND

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion in limine (Docket No. [106]) to exclude~ portions of deposition testimony
by George Alexander that Defendant designated for use at trial. Having carefully considered the motion.
the parties' responses thereto. and any replies, I find that the motion should be granted in part, and
denied in part, as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motion to exclude designations regarding Mr. Alexander's reasons for terminating
John Nevill is DENIED. In his deposition, Mr. Alexander discusses. why he would terminate Mr.

Nevill in response to a hypothetical question asking who he would have let go if he had been the
decision maker. (Docket No. 111. Exhibit A, at 8, lines 22-25.) Mr. Alexander answers that it is a
toss-up between Mr. Nevill and Greg Cherok and explains his reasclns for selecting each. Plaintiff
has designated the portions of Mr. Alexander's testimony regarding why Mr. Cherok should be
terminated; Defendant did not object. Although the relevance of those designations is unclear, I find
that the Rule of Completeness necessitates including Mr. Alexander's testimony relating to why he
would also consider Mr. Nevill for termination. F.R.E. 106.

2. Plaintiff's motion to exclude Mr. Alexander's deposition testimony about sexual harassment
charges against Mr. Nevill is DENIED. I agree with Defendant thelt Mr. Alexander's account of
sexual harassment charges made against Mr. Nevill is relevant to

NI~vill's

credibility. I find that these

designations may be used to explore whether Mr. Nevill is biased a!lainst CH2M. However, this
evidence must be used: 1) after Defendant has confronted Mr. Nevill about his alleged bias, see
F. R. E. 607 and 611; or 2) during the examination of any witness who will testify concerning Mr.
Nevill's character for truthfulness. F.R. E. 608.

3. Plaintiff's motion to exclude Mr. Alexander's account of his resignation is DENIED. I agree with
Defendant that this testimony is relevant and probative of Mr. Nevill's credibility and alleged bias and
may be used for impeachment purposes.

4. Plaintiff's motion to exclude designations wherein Mr. Alexander discusses disputes with Mr.
Vernon Jackson is GRANTED. I find Mr. Alexander's disagreement with one employee is not
relevant. Nor is said testimony probative of Mr. Alexander's alleged bias against CH2M.

5. Plaintiff's motion to exclude Mr. Alexander's views as to the pmblems involved with
employing women as outside salespersons is GRANTED. I fine this evidence is not relevant.
One's opinion as to gender does not bear on one's view as to age. It is too attenuated to suggest that
Mr. Alexander's unfavorable view of women as outside salespersons influenced CH2M to terminate
Mr. Romantine and retain a younger person.

6. Plaintiff's motion to exclude Mr. Alexander's views on the econ1omy is DENIED. I find this
evidence is relevant to Defendant's alleged legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Mr.
Romantine--that he was selected for termination because of a reduction in force due to a lagging
economy and not because of his age. That another in the industry 1"lad a view of the economy similar
to that of CH2M is probative of Defendant's claim.

7. Plaintiff's motion to exclude Mr. Alexander's employment as a contractor with Parsons Is
GRANTED. I find Mr. Alexander's personal employment experiencEl, outside of his employ with
CH2M, is not indicative of the state of the U.S. economy and, therefore, is not relevant to this case.

8. Plaintiff's motion to exclude disputes between Mr. Alexander and Mr. McKelvy about salary is
DENIED. I tind this evidence is relevant to a fact-tinder's evaluation of Defendant's claim that fiscal
considerations led to Mr. Romantine's termination. Moreover, it is probative of and provides the
context for evaluating Plaintiff's claim that Defendant terminated Mr. Romantine to hire "younger and
cheaper" employees. Also, because Plaintiff has designated some :)f the line of questioning in Mr.
Alexander's deposition dealing with the "younger and cheaper" comment, per the Rule of
Completeness, it follows that Mr. Alexander's full explanation of the t:;ontext of this "stray comment"
should be admitted. F.R.E. 106; see Amendment to Section D of Plaintiff's Pretrial Narrative, Docket
No. 102, deSignating pp. 106, line 17 to pp. 107, line 15.

9. Plaintiff's motion to exclude Mr. Alexander's deposition testimc,ny as to his non-possession of
certain documents is GRANTED. Defendant has not opposed Plclintiff's motion with respect to
these designations, nor do I see the relevance of this evidence. Accordingly, this testimony shall be
excluded.

Dated: February 27,2012
BY THE COURT:
IslDonetta W. AmbrosEl.
Donetta W. Ambrose
Senior U.S. District Judge