Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01394-GMS

Document 174

Filed 03/28/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE CAPTAIN BARBARA L. CONLEY, Plaintiff, v. COLONEL L. AARON CHAFFINCH, Individually and in his official capacity as the Superintendent, Delaware State Police; et al. Defendants, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 04-1394-GMS

DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF OTHER CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS AGAINST DELAWARE STATE POLICE AND INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS UNRELATED TO GENDER DISCRIMINATION
COMES NOW, the above-captioned Defendants, by and through their counsel, and hereby move this Honorable Court to enter an Order, in limine, determining that evidence of other prior or pending claims or lawsuits filed against DSP by various employees, not involving claims of gender discrimination, is not admissible in this case. This evidence is not probative or relevant to the issues in this case, is unduly prejudicial, and is otherwise not admissible for the reasons set forth herein and in the accompanying Opening Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion in limine as to this issue. 1. Plaintiff claims that she was the most qualified among 20 Delaware State Police troopers holding the rank of Captain to be appointed to the rank of Major in 2003. Plaintiff specifically claims that she was more qualified than Majors R.L. Hughes and Paul Eckrich, who got the two promotions at issue. Plaintiff claims that she was not promoted as a result of gender discrimination. Promotion to Major is a discretionary decision on the part of the Colonel. 2. Throughout this case, Plaintiff has alluded to various other lawsuits which have been filed against Defendants, Delaware State Police and/or former Colonel Chaffinch over the past several years. In almost all

Case 1:04-cv-01394-GMS

Document 174

Filed 03/28/2006

Page 2 of 4

of these, the plaintiffs were represented by the same attorneys representing Plaintiff in the instant case. Current Colonel Tom MacLeish was questioned extensively at his deposition about former Colonel Chaffinch's involvement in, and alleged liability for, lawsuits filed by Sgt. Christopher Foraker, Sgt. William Bullen, Sgt. Jeffrey Giles, and about an internal affairs complaint that Captain Greg Warren had filed against MacLeish. (MacLeish depo. at 107-117; 198-200)(Exhibit A). Lisa Blunt-Bradley, former State Personnel Director was also questioned about prior lawsuits. (Bradley depo at 16-18)(Exhibit B). Plaintiff, at her deposition, referred to a lawsuit filed by former Captain Greg Warren. Retired Major David Baylor, at his deposition, was also asked about his own lawsuit against DSP. Plaintiff's counsel has made reference to other DSP lawsuits throughout the pleadings and motions in this case, including placing entire depositions from three unrelated lawsuits into the Appendix to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and referring to them as though part of the record in this case.1 (D.I. 139, 144). 3. None of the prior lawsuits alluded to by Plaintiff involved any claims of gender discrimination, sexual harassment or any other "gender based" issues. 4. Evidence that other lawsuits have been filed against DSP and/or Colonel Chaffinch (and the outcome of those suits) is inadmissible in this case, as they are of no relevance to Plaintiff's claims of gender discrimination. Evidence as to non-gender based claims filed against Defendants is of no probative value to any of the issues and questions before the jury in this case. The evidence is therefore irrelevant and is inadmissible pursuant to F.R.E. 401 and 402. 5. Even assuming relevance, evidence of other lawsuits is inadmissible under F.R.E. 404(b), as it is being offered to prove propensity or "action in conformity" with Defendants' alleged misconduct in the other cases. Plaintiff hopes that the jury will conclude that there must be merit to this case because Defendants have been sued, sometimes successfully, in the past. This is clearly "propensity" evidence forbidden by F.R.E.

1 Dillman v. Chaffinch (D.Del, 02-509 KAJ) was a procedural due process case involving a male civilian employee.

Bullen v. Chaffinch (02-1315 JJF) was a "reverse discrimination" case (white male plaintiffs). Price/Foraker v. Chaffinch (04-1207/04-956 GMS) are the currently pending "firing range" cases alleging "retaliation" as a result of plaintiffs' purported complaints about workplace safety.

Case 1:04-cv-01394-GMS

Document 174

Filed 03/28/2006

Page 3 of 4

404(b). 6. Certain lawsuits alluded to by Plaintiff (e.g. Baylor, Warren) were settled out of court, with no admission of liability. Evidence of settled claims or lawsuits is absolutely inadmissible under Rule 408. 7. Finally, the evidence is not admissible under F.R.E. 403, as there is little or no probative value to evidence that other persons have alleged various kinds of discrimination against Defendants--none related to gender--and the value (if any) of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, undue delay and waste of time. Allowing Plaintiff to present select evidence as to what may have been alleged in other lawsuits would open the door to "mini-trials" on the merits of each of these old suits--clearly resulting in a waste of time that would in no way advance the issues before the jury in this case. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in Defendants' Opening Brief, Plaintiff's proffered evidence of other lawsuits that have been filed against Defendants should be excluded from the evidence presented to the jury in this case.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE OF DELAWARE By: /s/Stephani J. Ballard RALPH K. DURSTEIN, III (I.D. No. 912) STEPHANI J. BALLARD (I.D. No. 3481) Deputy Attorneys General Carvel State Office Building 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8400 Attorneys for Defendants, MacLeish Mitchell and Division of State Police LIGOURI, MORRIS & YIENGST By: /s/ James E. Ligouri JAMES E. LIGOURI 46 The Green Dover, DE 19901 (302) 678-9900 Attorney for Defendant, L. Aaron Chaffinch DATED: March 28, 2006

Case 1:04-cv-01394-GMS

Document 174

Filed 03/28/2006

Page 4 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE CAPTAIN BARBARA L. CONLEY, Plaintiff, v. COLONEL L. AARON CHAFFINCH, Individually and in his official capacity as the Superintendent, Delaware State Police; et al. Defendants, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 04-1394-GMS

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND/OR DELIVERY The undersigned certifies that on March 28, 2006, she caused the attached, Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Other Claims and Lawsuits Against Delaware state Police and Individual Defendants Unrelated to Gender Discrimination, to be electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to the following: Thomas S. Neuberger, Esq. Stephen J. Neuberger, Esq. Two East Seventh Street, Suite 302 Wilmington, DE 19801 /s/ Stephani J. Ballard Stephani J. Ballard, I.D. #3481 Deputy Attorney General Carvel State Office Building 820 N. French Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 (302)577-8400 Attorney for Defendants MacLeish, Mitchell and State Police