Gonzalez-Tomasini et al v. Brennan

Filing 270

OPINION & ORDER regarding 196 Motion in Limine. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Marcos E. Lopez on 7/22/2022. (BB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
ORLANDO GONZÁLEZ TOMASINI,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL NO.: 17-1552 (MEL)

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER
On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff Orlando González Tomasini’s (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant United
States Postal Service (“USPS” or “Defendant”) filed a revised joint proposed pretrial order. ECF
No. 187. In Defendant’s section of the revised joint proposed pretrial order titled “Summary of
Factual Contentions,” Defendant referred to the final agency decision made by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on January 25, 2017 which found that Plaintiff
had not suffered discrimination or retaliation. ECF No. 187 at 39. Pending before the court is
Plaintiff’s motion in limine “To Preclude Questions or Statements to the Jury Concerning the
Agency’s Finding of No Discrimination.” ECF No. 196. In its motion in limine, Plaintiff argues
that, although the court has discretion as to whether admit evidence regarding the EEOC final
agency decision, the probative value of the final agency decision being presented to the jury would
be outweighed by its unfair prejudice and risk of confusing the jury under Federal Rule of Evidence
403. ECF No. 196 at 2–3.
Defendant filed an omnibus response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion in limine and other
motions in limine which Plaintiff filed. ECF No. 212. Defendant argues that the final agency
determination “is an admissible document under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) because it is a
public record ‘containing factual findings from a legally authorized investigation.’” ECF No. 212 at

13–14. Even so, Defendant does not identify in the joint proposed pretrial order the final agency
decision as documentary evidence which Defendant intends to introduce at trial. ECF No. 212 at 13
(“Defendant did not notice the document for identification in the Proposed Joint Pretrial Order of
June 8, 2020.”); ECF No. 187 at 96–97. In Defendant’s response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion
in limine, Defendant communicates that it does “not propose to enter the Final Agency Decision
document into evidence” and that it only “reserves the right to submit the document into evidence
for purposes of impeachment . . . to contradict testimony, prove bias, or reveal prior inconsistent
statements . . . or in rebuttal[.]” ECF No. 212 at 14.
The final agency decision has not been submitted to the court as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s
motion in limine or as an exhibit to Defendant’s response so that the court could examine the
document and analyze the relevant facts that led to the EEOC’s conclusion that no discrimination or
retaliation occurred. See e.g. Patten v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., 300 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 2002)
(Finding the district court committed no error in excluding from evidence a right-to-sue letter,
“when it concludes that such an agency determination, unaccompanied by relevant facts, tends to be
more prejudicial than probative.”). Thus, the failure to tender as an exhibit the final agency decision
is sufficient basis to DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion in limine.
Nevertheless, to the extent that Plaintiffs’ motion in limine is seeking to preclude the
introduction of the final agency decision as an exhibit at trial for non-impeachment purposes, said
request is MOOT as neither side seeks to introduce said document into evidence. If, however, the
final agency decision contains a witness’ prior inconsistent statement under oath, reference to such
prior inconsistent statement under oath would be admissible for impeachment purposes.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 22nd day of July, 2022.
s/Marcos E. López
U.S. Magistrate Judge
2