Hackler v. American Esoteric Laboratories, Inc. (JRG1)

Filing 125

ORDER granting 87 Motion in Limine; denying 89 Motion in Limine; denying 91 Motion in Limine; granting 93 Motion in Limine; granting 95 Motion in Limine; granting 108 Motion in Limine; granting 109 Motion to Bifurcate; granting 111 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 11/27/19. (ABF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
VIRGINIA HACKLER
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN ESOTERIC LABORATORIES,
INC., d/b/a MEMPHIS PATHOLOGY
LABORATORY, INC., a/k/a MEMPHIS
PATHOLOGY LABORATORY d/b/a
AMERICAN ESOTERIC LABORATORIES,
a DIVISION of SONIC HEALTHCARE,
Defendant.

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

No. 3:17-CV-130-HBG

ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Rule 73(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the consent of the parties, for all further proceedings,
including entry of judgment [Doc. 10].
Now before the Court are the parties’ Motions in Limine [Docs. 87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 108,
and 111] and Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate [Doc. 109]. The parties appeared before the Court
on November 27, 2019, for a pretrial conference. Attorneys David Alexander Burkhalter, III, and
David A. Burkhalter, II appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Attorneys Chris McCarty and Caitlyn
Elam appeared on behalf of Defendant. Accordingly, for the reasons explained at the pretrial
conference, the Court FINDS as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Limit or Exclude Testimony
by Witness June Spooner [Doc. 87] is hereby GRANTED. June
Spooner’s testimony regarding her own termination is irrelevant
under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and her testimony regarding
her sense that it was a hassle for Plaintiff’s supervisor to secure
coverage for Plaintiff’s route is speculative.

2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Prohibit Plaintiff’s Lay and
Speculative Testimony Regarding Causation [Doc. 89] is
DENIED. Defendant may cross examine Plaintiff on her
alleged mental and emotional distress.
3. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Prohibit Plaintiff’s Testimony
Regarding Her Opinion of Demeanor During Termination [Doc.
91] is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant withdrew the motion at
the hearing.
4. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Prohibit Plaintiff’s Hearsay
Testimony [Doc. 93] is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s testimony
regarding statements made by Karen Reed to Regina Jenkins and
then repeated from Jenkins to Plaintiff constitutes hearsay within
hearsay. Further, Plaintiff’s testimony that “other people” heard
Karen Reed’s comments is hearsay and speculative.
5. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Hearsay Testimony
from Witness Shannon Bolden [Doc. 95] is GRANTED to the
extent that Bolden’s testimony constitutes hearsay.
6. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Bar Portions of Testimony
from Witness Jacky Allen [Doc. 108] is GRANTED. Such
testimony set forth in exhibit one constitutes speculation and
hearsay.
7. Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine One Through Three [Doc. 111] are
GRANTED. The parties agreed that Defendant’s lack of
insurance and the EEOC findings are irrelevant. The Court
further finds that Plaintiff’s unemployment benefits are
irrelevant, but Defendant may use the unemployment
application for impeachment purposes.
8. Finally, with respect to Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate, the
parties agreed the bifurcation is appropriate in this case.
Accordingly, the Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED [Doc. 109].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

United States Magistrate Judge

2