McArthur v. The Rock Wood Fired Pizza & Spirits et al

Filing 111

ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 95 Motions in Limine by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8

JENNIFER McARTHUR,

9

Plaintiff,

10

v.
11
12

THE ROCK WOODFIRED PIZZA &
SPIRITS, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

I.

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

CASE NO. C14-0770 RSM

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine.

Dkt. #95.

17

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motions. Dkt. #104. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court
18
19

now DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine in their entirety.
II.

20
21

LEGAL STANDARD

Parties may file motions in limine before or during trial “to exclude anticipated

22

prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S.
23
24

38, 40 n.2, 105 S. Ct. 460, 83 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1984). To resolve such motions, the Court is

25

guided by Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403. Specifically, the Court considers whether evidence “has

26

any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” and

27

whether “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. But the

28

Court may exclude relevant evidence if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by a
ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the

2

jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid.

3

403.

4

III.

DISCUSSION

5

A. Motions In Limine 1
6
7

Plaintiff first moves to exclude the testimony of Melanie Fraser on the basis that

8

Defendants unduly delayed the disclosure of her contact information in Florida, which resulted

9

in her inability to depose her. Dkt. #95 at 1-6. Defendants refute Plaintiff’s inability to depose

10

Ms. Fraser, and assert that any delay in the disclosure of her personal contact information was

11

harmless. Dkt. #104 at 1-5. Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Court agrees with
12
13
14
15

Defendants and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Ms. Fraser’s testimony.
B. Motions In Limine 2
Plaintiff next moves to exclude the testimony of Shannon Kimball on the basis that

16

Defendants unduly delayed the disclosure of her contact information. Dkt. #95 at 6. While
17
18

Defendants respond that they did disclose the address for Mr. Kimball, they also state that they

19

do not intend to call him as a witness. Dkt. #104 at 5. Accordingly, this motion is DENIED as

20

MOOT.

21

C. Motion In Limine 3

22

Plaintiff moves to exclude evidence and argument about why Plaintiff left her former
23
24

employment with Virginia Mason. Dkt. #95 at 6-9. Plaintiff argues that the reasons for her

25

resignation from that job in lieu of termination, after being accused of falsifying or

26

misrepresenting time records, is inadmissible, irrelevant and prejudicial.

27

Id.

Defendants

respond that such evidence and testimony is both relevant and admissible on several bases.

28

ORDER
PAGE - 2

1
2
3
4

Dkt. #104 at 5-11.

Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Court agrees with

Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
D. Motions In Limine 4 and 5
Plaintiff next moves to exclude evidence and argument that any Wedge Corporation

5

employee other than Ms. McArthur (including Kyla Hopkins) took breast-pumping breaks
6
7

while working for the Wedge Corporation. Dkt. #95 at 10-11. Plaintiff appears to make this

8

motion on the basis that Ms. Hopkins was never identified as a person who took breast-

9

pumping breaks, nor were any other employees. Id. Defendant responds that there is no basis

10

to exclude this testimony or Ms. Hopkins. Dkt. #104 at 11-12. The Court agrees. Plaintiff

11

actually deposed Ms. Hopkins, and there does not appear to be any other employee offered to
12
13
14
15

testify on this subject. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
E. Motions In Limine 6 and 7
Plaintiff moves for an Order precluding Defendants from offering any evidence or

16

argument that Plaintiff’s termination was justified for any reason other than cash mishandling.
17
18

Plaintiff’s termination letter included the following reasons for her termination: (1) lack of

19

teamwork, (2) wasting time, (3) lowering morale/teamwork, (4) a pattern of excessive voids,

20

and (5) a pattern of excessive comps. However, Plaintiff asserts that The Wedge Corporation

21

now only relies on the cash mishandling to support her termination. Dkt. #95 at 11. At the

22

same time, Plaintiff seeks permission to provide evidence and argument that her termination
23
24

was based on all of the aforementioned reasons without opening the door for Defendant to

25

argue those reasons were justified. Dkt. #95 at 11-12. Defendants respond that the restrictions

26

requested by Plaintiff are not appropriate. Dkt. #104 at 12. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s

27

motions will be DENIED.

28

ORDER
PAGE - 3

1
2
3
4

F. Motions In Limine 8-16
In her Motions In Limine 8-16, Plaintiff asks the Court to preclude Defendants from
presenting numerous pieces of evidence and argument based on the after-acquired evidence

5

doctrine. Dkt. #95 at 12-18. Defendants respond that they are not invoking the after-acquired
6
7

evidence doctrine to limit Plaintiff’s damages in this case. Dkt, #104 at 12-17. In addition,

8

Defendants note that the evidence of which Plaintiff complains is simply evidence supporting

9

the stated reasons for Plaintiff’s termination. Id. Having reviewed the record in this matter, the

10

Court agrees with Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.

11

IV.

CONCLUSION

12
13

Having reviewed Defendants’ motions in limine, the opposition thereto, and the

14

remainder of the record, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motions (Dkt. #95) are

15

DENIED as set forth above.

16

DATED this 14th day of April, 2017.
17

A

18
19

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 4