Dept of Labor v. Hoa Salon Ballard, Inc et al

Filing 64

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE 44 46 signed by Judge James L. Robart. (see order for details) (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,

11

Plaintiff,
v.

12
13

CASE NO. C17-0961JLR
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
REGARDING MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

HOA SALON ROOSEVELT, INC.,
et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
During the January 23, 2019, hearing, the court granted in part, denied in part, and
16
reserved ruling in part on the motions in limine of Defendant R. Alexander Acosta, the
17
Secretary of Labor (“the Secretary”) and Plaintiffs Hoa Salon Roosevelt, Inc., Hoa Salon
18
Ballard, Inc., Thuy Michelle Nguyen Pravitz, and Eric Pravtiz. (See Min. Entry (Dkt. #
19
58); see also Def. MIL (Dkt. #46); Plf. MIL (Dkt. # 44).) The court also ordered the
20
parties to submit additional materials on certain issues raised in the motions in limine no
21
later than Monday, January 28, 2019. (See Min. Entry.) The parties timely submitted the
22

ORDER - 1

1

additional materials the court requested. (See Plf. Resp. (Dkt # 60); Def. Resp. (Dkt.

2

# 61); Martin Decl. (Dkt. # 62); M. Pravitz Decl. (Dkt. # 63).) The court has reviewed

3

the parties’ supplemental submissions and makes the following supplemental rulings

4

concerning the parties’ motions in limine:

5

(1) The court accepts the Secretary’s representation that the parties have conferred

6

and there is no longer a dispute concerning whether the Secretary should

7

produce certain notes taken by Department of Labor (“DOL”) investigators.

8

(See Plf. Resp. at 2.)

9

(2) The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Secretary’s motion in

10

limine number five, which seeks to exclude evidence that Defendants’

11

employees received other back pay awards from prior employment. (See Plf.

12

MIL at 14-15.) The Secretary is correct that ordinarily this evidence would not

13

be admissible because it is irrelevant and prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 402;

14

Fed. R. Evid. 403. Introduction of this evidence risks the conduct of irrelevant

15

and wasteful mini-trials about unrelated DOL investigations within the context

16

of the present dispute. See Fed. R. Evid. 611. However, Defendants argued

17

that Ms. Le My Tran lied in her deposition about having knowledge of the

18

2012 DOL investigation of Bella Nails and receiving back pay as a result of

19

that litigation. (See Def. Resp. at 2.) As such, Defendants argued that cross-

20

examination of Ms. Tran about her deposition testimony on this issue would be

21

“probative of [her] character for truthfulness or untruthfulness” and, therefore,

22

admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b)(1). (Def. MIL Resp. (Dkt.

ORDER - 2

1

# 53) at 13-15.) In his supplemental submission to the court, the Secretary

2

withdrew his objection to allowing Defendants to cross examine Ms. Tran

3

about any past DOL investigation of her previous employer, Bella Nails. (Plf.

4

Resp. at 2.) Accordingly, the court DENIES this portion of the Secretary’s

5

motion and will permit Defendants to cross examine Ms. Tran on this issue.

6

Dated this 29th day of January, 2019.

7
8

A

9

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

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

ORDER - 3