Abadeer et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

Filing 373

ORDER: In accordance with the discussion at the final pretrial conference held on March 31, 2014, the Court confirms the following rulings: (See Order). Trial will commence on Tuesday, April 15, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. and is expected to take fifteen days. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 4/3/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
HANAA B. ABADEER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TYSON FOODS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:09-cv-00125
Judge Sharp

ORDER
In accordance with the discussion at the final pretrial conference held on March 31, 2014,
the Court confirms the following rulings:
(1) Plaintiffs’ motion in limine No. 1 to exclude testimony from and evidence related to
Jordan plaintiffs who: (1) are not class members in this case; or (2) have no claims for damages
in this case as a result of the settlement in Jordan, (Docket No. 327), is hereby GRANTED
except as to Jordan plaintiffs who worked at the Goodlettsville facility during the Abadeer
limitations period. Testimony elicited from such witnesses is, of course, subject to impeachment
and other legitimate cross-examination purposes, and may open the door to issues related to the
Jordan litigation.
(2) A ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion in limine No. 2 to exclude January 2014 videotapes,
(Docket No. 325), is hereby RESERVED.
(3) A ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion in limine No. 3 to exclude evidence of Plaintiffs’
criminal backgrounds, (Docket No. 311), is hereby RESERVED. In addition to complying with

1

the applicable evidentiary rules, counsel will be required to notify the Court and opposing
counsel before questioning a witness about prior criminal conduct.
(4) A ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion in limine No. 4 to preclude Defendants from
introducing evidence regarding Plaintiffs’ involvement in other lawsuits, (Docket No. 314), is
hereby RESERVED.
(5) Plaintiffs’ motion in limine No. 5 to exclude “Rule 1006 Summary” exhibits and
testimony related to these exhibits analyzing differences between Plaintiffs’ actual clock-in time
and pay start time, (Docket No. 316), is hereby GRANTED to the extent the exhibits or
testimony opine as to the data’s meaning, including conclusions or inferences drawn from it;
however, the Court will permit raw data and basic calculations using that data in summary
charts. Counsel is instructed to show any such summary chart to the Court and opposing counsel
before publishing it to the jury.
(6) The Court resolves Plaintiffs’ omnibus motion in limine No. 6, (Docket No. 319), as
follows. The part of the motion that pertains to exclusion of:
(a) evidence concerning Plaintiffs’ or other class members’ failure to complain
about non-payment is hereby GRANTED;
(b) the calling of any witness that Defendants refuse to produce in Plaintiffs’ casein-chief is hereby DENIED;
(c) all non-party witnesses (except expert witnesses) from the courtroom at all
times other than when they are called to testify is hereby GRANTED;
(d) references to attorneys’ fees or cost of litigation is hereby GRANTED;

2

(e) references to the opt-in process and to the circumstances surrounding
Plaintiffs’ attorney-client relationship is hereby DENIED as to questions or evidence
regarding the opt-in process but GRANTED as to questions or evidence regarding the
circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ attorney-client relationship;
(f) argument or evidence concerning procedural requirements for class
certification is hereby DENIED; and
(g) references to jury verdicts, summary-judgment rulings, and other court orders
in unrelated cases is hereby GRANTED.
(7) The Court resolves Defendants’ omnibus motion in limine to exclude certain evidence
or arguments, (Docket No. 301), as follows. The part of the motion that pertains to exclusion of:
(a) evidence of or relating to Jordan v. IBP, Inc., and the settlement of that
lawsuit is hereby GRANTED except to the extent that Tyson opens the door to it;
(b) evidence or argument related to the Court’s summary-judgment ruling or any
other prior rulings in this case is hereby GRANTED except that the Court will inform the
jury of its prior rulings to the extent necessary;
(c) evidence of or relating to other Tyson lawsuits or settlements is hereby
GRANTED;
(d) evidence relating to the pay practices and meal-period lengths at Tyson’s other
processing facilities is hereby GRANTED;
(e) all evidence that relates solely to claims on which the Court already has
granted summary judgment or that Tyson has withdrawn is hereby RESERVED;

3

(f) evidence related to the Defendants’ never implemented “Punch to Punch” plan
is hereby DENIED;
(g) evidence regarding alleged deprivation of restroom usage during production
time is hereby GRANTED;
(h) Plaintiffs’ testimony about the results of any timings of their pre- and postshift and meal-period activities if such results were memorialized but not disclosed
during discovery is hereby GRANTED;
(i) any reference to Tyson’s financial condition, financial analysis, and the
comparative or absolute economic status of the parties is hereby GRANTED;
(j) evidence characterizing jobs at the Goodlettsville facility as low-paying or any
other attempt to compare the hourly rates or wages at the Goodlettsville plant to other
employers or workforces is hereby DENIED; and
(k) evidence of or relating to the immigrant workforce population, employee
immigration status, or immigration investigations at Tyson or other meat processing
facilities is hereby RESERVED.
(8) Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude Plaintiffs from presenting to the jury certain
damages evidence or arguments, (Docket No. 303), is hereby GRANTED.
(9) Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary statement, (Docket No. 365), is DENIED. Absent
a joint statement, which the parties may still submit before trial, the Court will provide the jury
with minimal background information to contextualize the case.

4

(10) The Court will determine Plaintiffs’ entitlement to prejudgment interest, including
the rate of interest and the date from which it accrues, in the damages phase of the trial. See
Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 929 n.8 (Tenn. 1998).
(11) A ruling on Tyson’s motion to decertify the Rule 23 and FLSA classes, (Docket No.
324), is hereby RESERVED.
(12) The Court will issue an order resolving the pending motions related to Plaintiffs’
meal-period claim, (Docket Nos. 284, 286, & 300), before trial.
(13) Trial will commence on Tuesday, April 15, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. and is expected to
take fifteen days.
It is SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5