Wright et al v. City of Marshall Texas

Filing 77

MEMORANDUM ORDER -. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 3/15/2016. (ch, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ARDIS WRIGHT, ET AL.

§
§
§
§
§

v.
CITY OF MARSHALL TEXAS

Case No. 2:15-CV-279-RSP

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Currently before the Court are the motions in limine carried at the Pretrial Conference for
further briefing.
Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 by Plaintiffs concern federal income tax returns filed by
Plaintiff Jennifer Carpenter in 2012 and 2013. Those returns claim a farm loss deduction that
Plaintiff maintains would be unduly prejudicial if discussed before the jury. The Court finds that
the tax returns are relevant due to the Plaintiff’s claim for lost wages, and are not collateral
matters. Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff contends they are not accurate statements of her
income, they are relevant to her credibility. Accordingly, as long as a wage loss claim is
asserted, the motions in limine are DENIED.
Motions in Limine 3 and 22 by Plaintiffs concern retirement benefits and whether
Defendant is entitled to offset them against the wage loss claimed by Plaintiffs. The Court finds
that any retirement benefits received from the City of Marshall (or to which the City contributed)
may be offered by Defendant as mitigation of Plaintiffs’ wage loss claims. E.g., Smith v. Office
of Personnel Management, 778 F.2d 258, 263 (5th Cir. 1985). However, any retirement benefits
received by Plaintiffs on account of work for other employers than the City may not be presented
to the jury as mitigation.

1

Finally, the Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum (Dkt. No. 73) complains of portions
of the expert report of James Davis, CPA, in which Davis opines that certain actions by Plaintiffs
caused Plaintiffs to no longer qualify as properly mitigating their damages. While the expert
may testify as to relevant facts of which he has knowledge, he will not be permitted to offer any
opinion as to the adequacy, intent or motivation of Plaintiffs’ efforts to mitigate their losses.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 15th day of March, 2016.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2