Free Uncategorized - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

l Joseph T. Clees, N0. 009645
2 Karen Gillen, No. 018008
Nonnie L. Shivers, N0. 023460
3 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., N0. 00504800
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800
4 Phoenix, Arizona 85016
5 Telephone: (.602) 778-3700
[email protected]
6 [email protected] g
7 [email protected]
g Attorneys for Charles Schwab & Company, Inc.
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 it DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
g 12 Marcela Johnson, No. CV-04-0790-PHX-J WS
2 § g § 13 Plaintiff, CHARLES SCHWAB & COMPANY,
E1 5 § E I4 INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO 11
Q Q § § VS- PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM
r E 15 Ch I S h b C . PRESENTING izvinsncr.,
8 "‘ ,—; ·= 16 at CS C Wa °1“P°m“°“= ARGUMENT, OR TESTIMONY ,
§ Defendant. RELATED TO PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF
17 MEDICAL INSURANCE
18 (Oral Argument Requested)
- 19 _ ?
20 Defendant, Charles Schwab & Company, Inc. ("Sehwab"), respectfully moves in
21 limine for an order precluding plaintiff, Marcela Johnson ("plaintiff"), from introducing
22 at trial any anecdotal evidence, testimony, or argument relating, referring, or pertaining to
23 plaintiffs medical insurance, or lack thereof, since Schwab dismissed her. This evidence
24 should be excluded at trial because it is not relevant. Moreover, even if it were relevant,
25 it should be excluded because its probative value, if any, would be substantially
26 outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Case 2:04-cv—OO790-EHC Document 129 Filed O3/31/2006 Page 1 of 4

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. Factual Background
3 Schwab provides its employees with medical insurance. During plaintiffs
4 employment with Schwab, she rejected the insurance coverage Schwab provided to its
5 employees.
6 On November 6, 2003, plaintiff was terminated from Schwab. At that time,
7 plaintiff was insured through her husband’s insurance policy. Plaintiff remained on her
8 husband’s policy through September 2005, when her divorce became final.
9 Plaintiff has never purchased medical insurance since she was dismissed from
10 Schwab. In fact, she testified during her deposition that she is purposely not looking for a
E 11 job that offers medical insurance benefits until this lawsuit is over. _
12 After plaintiff was dismissed from Schwab she held at least two jobs that offered
tr »: ·= °° . . . . . .
E E E g 13 medical insurance benefits. Plaintiff quit one of those jobs and was fired from the other p
E 14 one for cause.
g E E5 E 15 II. Legal Analysis
3 m § L 16 Plaintiff may attempt to tell the jury about her lack of medical insurance coverage.
5 17 Plaintiffs insurance coverage, or lack thereof is not relevant to his case. Plaintiff cannot
18 recover expenditures for health insurance because she admits that she has not purchased
19 substitute insurance. EEOC v. Domino ’s Pizza, Inc. 909 F. Supp. at 1537; see also
20 Kahn/zann v. Reno, 928 F. Supp. 1209, 1223 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). Further, she has never
2l produced evidence of expenses incurred for medical care, and is therefore prohibited
22 from seeking any damages relating to any loss of medical insurance. Taylor v. Central
23 Pennsylvania Drug & Alcohol Servs. Corp., 890 F. Supp. 360 (l\/l.D. Pa. 1995).
24 Plaintiffs insurance status is not relevant to this case and therefore, any evidence or
25 reference relating to insurance, is not admissible.
26 Even if plaintiffs insurance status was in some way relevant, the relevance is
27 substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. If plaintiff introduces
28 plaintiffs lack of insurance it will be nothing more than an attempt to win the jury’s
Case 2:04-cv—OO790-EHC Document 129 2 Filed O3/31/2006 Page 2 of 4

1 sympathy, which is prejudicial to Schwab. Accordingly, plaintiff should be precluded
2 ITOIT1 p1`€S€1'1l]l1’1g Eifly €Vld€l'1CC I`€13.lZll'1g to 1'1'1€dlC3.l ll"1SLlI`3.1"lC€ COV€I`Elg€.
3 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3 lst day of March 2006.
4 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
5 SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. I
6 Q
7 . f
By: s/ Karen Gillen ·
8 Joseph T. Clees ,
. Karen Gillen
9 Nonnie L. Shivers
10 24l5 East Camelback Road, Suite 800
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85016
fj 11 Attorneys for Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
— E EB
i¥2a I2 {
EES; I3 {
5553 A
s G iz I4
s§¥s 1
§s6§ I5 >
§$§t 1
E I6 . E
S I7 i
is
19 §
20
2l §
22 Q
23 i
24 §
25 i
26 1
27 Q
28 i
Case 2:04-cv—OO790-EHC Document 129 3 Filed O3/31/2006 Page 3 of 4

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7
2 I hereby certify that on the 3 lst day of March 2006, I electronically transmitted the
3 foregoing document to the Clerl<’s office using the CMfECF System for filing and
4 transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECP registrant:
5 Dawn C. Valdivia, Esq.
6 Quarles Brady Streich Lang, LLP
Two North Central Avenue
7 Phoenix, Arizona 85004
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Marcela Johnson
9
10 s/ Debra A. Irwin
0 Y
E ll
12
2%%; l3 i
456;
afit l4
432; g
15
0 ln U} IL :
° 6 16 A
i 17 Q
18 §
19
20 E
2l i
22 Q
23
24 §
25 l
26 i
27 §
28 i
Case 2:04-cv—OO790-EHC Document 129 4 Filed O3/31/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 129

Filed 03/31/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 129

Filed 03/31/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 129

Filed 03/31/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 129

Filed 03/31/2006

Page 4 of 4