Transwest Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society
Filing
141
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting in part and denying in part 134 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 01/24/2013. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
TRANSWEST CREDIT UNION,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART CUMIS’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
EXHIBITS 116 THROUGH 119 AND
RELATED TESTIMONY
vs.
CUMIS INSURANCE SOCIETY, INC.,
Case No. 2:09-CV-297 TS
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Cumis Insurance Society, Inc.’s (“Cumis”)
Motion In Limine to Exclude Plaintiff’s Exhibits 116 through 119 and Related Testimony.1
Cumis moves the Court to exclude the exhibits and related testimony on the grounds that the
proposed evidence was untimely disclosed, is not relevant to the claims in this action, and poses
a risk of unfair prejudice and confusion. Plaintiff Transwest Credit Union (“Transwest”)
1
Docket No. 134.
1
contends that the exhibits are relevant and that it disclosed the exhibits as soon as possible after
receiving them.
The exhibits at issue document a prior sexual harassment lawsuit brought against
Transwest in 2003 and the subsequent settlement of the suit. Transwest seeks to admit the
exhibits as evidence in support of Marc Mikkleson’s testimony that it is Transwest’s policy to
offer severance pay to employees it terminates in exchange for a release from the individual
providing that they will not pursue claims against Transwest. Transwest provided exhibits 116
through 119 to Cumis on January 10, 2013.
Transwest’s proposed exhibits 116 through 119 fall under the purview of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). Therefore, such exhibits should have been disclosed, at the latest, by
December 28, 2012. Federal Rule of Civil Procedrue 37(c)(1) provides that where a party “fails
to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not
allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a
trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.”
The following factors guide the Court in determining whether Transwest’s late disclosure
was substantially justified or harmless: “(1) the prejudice or surprise to the party against whom
the testimony is offered; (2) the ability of the party to cure the prejudice; (3) the extent to which
introducing such testimony would disrupt the trial; and (4) the moving party’s bad faith or
willfulness.”2
2
Woodworker’s Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 170 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir.
1999).
2
The Court finds compelling Cumis’s argument that the testimony of Mr. Mikkleson that
Transwest seeks to support with these documents was given during a deposition on February 24,
2010. Thus, the parties have been aware of this issue for nearly three years. The Court is
persuaded that Cumis would be prejudiced by Transwest’s late disclosure of exhibits in support
of testimony that has been available for such an extended period of time. This argument is
particularly persuasive because the documents Transwest seeks to admit were within Transwest’s
control during the intervening time period. Cumis’s ability to cure the resultant prejudice in this
circumstance is low, given the quickly approaching trial date. As to the remaining factors, the
Court finds that allowing the exhibits would not greatly disrupt the trial and it does not appear
that the late disclosure was made in bad faith. Given the timing issue addressed previously,
however, the Court is persuaded that the late disclosure was willful.
On balance of the factors provided above, the Court finds that Transwest’s late disclosure
was not justified or harmless. Further, even if the instant exhibits were timely disclosed, the
relevance of the documents to this lawsuit is questionable.3 Thus, the probative value of the
exhibits would likely be outweighed by their potential to confuse the issues and mislead the jury.4
Based on the foregoing, Transwest will be precluded from admitting exhibits 116 through
119 at trial. Nevertheless, the Court will allow Transwest to introduce testimony at trial in
support of its severance policy. It is therefore
3
See Fed. R. Evid. 401.
4
See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
3
ORDERED that Cumis’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Plaintiff’s Exhibits 116 through
119 and Related Testimony (Docket No. 134) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
DATED January 24, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?