Kitazi v. Sellen Construction Company Inc et al

Filing 65

ORDER granting Defendants' 59 -1 64 Amended Motions in Limine. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

ERIC KITAZI,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

CASE NO. C16-1651-MJP

v.

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

SELLEN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. a corporation;
ROBERT P. MCCLESKY director, in
his individual and corporate capacities
and on behalf of his marital community,
JANE DOE MCCLESKY; KATE
HARKESS, individually and in her
official capacity; and KEN KNUDSEN,
individually and in his official
supervisory capacities,

18
19

Defendants.

20
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Amended Motions in Limine
21
(Dkt. Nos. 59-1, 64). Having reviewed the Motion, the Response (Dkt. No. 49), and all related
22
papers, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions in Limine.
23
24

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 1

1

I.

Motion in Limine No. 1: Photographs of Sellen Workers
Plaintiff seeks to introduce a photograph showing a group of Sellen employees, taken at a

2
3

jobsite and posted to the company’s social media account. (Dkt. No. 59-1 at 2.) Plaintiff

4

contends that the photograph depicts a “representative group” of Sellen employees and “has

5

probative value as to the racial composition of the workforce.” (Dkt. No. 49 at 2.) Defendant

6

responds that the photograph shows “nothing more than a random sampling of workers who

7

happened to be on a jobsite at a particular time,” and that even reliable evidence of the racial

8

demographics of the company’s workforce is irrelevant because Plaintiff does not allege

9

discriminatory patterns or practices or a generally discriminatory culture.” (Dkt. No. 59-1 at 2.)
The Court finds that the photograph is neither reliable evidence of Sellen’s employee

10
11

demographics, nor relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in the litigation. The Court

12

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1.

13
14

II.

Motion in Limine No. 2: Newspaper Articles
Plaintiff seeks to introduce various newspaper articles discussing the company’s

15

operations. (Dkt. No. 59-1 at 3; Dkt. Nos. 64-1–64-6.) Plaintiff contends the articles are

16

relevant to the reasons for his termination, and that at least one includes admissions by a party-

17

opponent. (Dkt. No. 49 at 3-4.) Defendant responds that the articles are irrelevant and

18

inadmissible hearsay, and are not the best evidence of the workload for cement masons at the

19

time of Plaintiff’s dismissal. (Dkt. No. 59-1 at 3.)

20

The Court finds that the articles describing various Sellen projects (Dkt. Nos. 64-2–64-6)

21

are inadmissible hearsay. The Court finds that the article in which Sellen President Scott

22

Redman describes potential labor shortages for construction workers, including cement masons

23

(Dkt. No. 64-6), is neither an admission of a party-opponent, nor relevant to the claims and

24

defenses asserted in the litigation. Plaintiff was terminated in November 2014, but the article

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 2

1

was not published until April 30, 2015, and merely predicts a potential labor shortage at some

2

time “this year.” (Id.; see also Dkt. No. 37 at 13.) Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

3

Motion in Limine No. 2.

4

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

5

Dated December 7, 2017.

7

A

8

Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

6

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 3