Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Rosval A. Patterson, SBN 018872 Patterson & Associates, P.L.L.C. 777 East Thomas Road, Suite 210 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Tel.: (602) 462-1004 E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for the Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: CIV 04-429 PHX MHM

Alexander Jung, Plaintiff, vs. John E. Potter, Postmaster General , Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT'S LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff, Alexander Jung, submits this Motion in Limine respectfully requesting that this Court preclude any testimony, evidence, argument or instruction from Defendant and move to exclude all reference to a legitimate business reason as an affirmative defense. This motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and

Authorities.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
22 23 24 25

Defendants have offered no proof that they had a legitimate business reason as a defense against Plaintiff's allegations. In Defendant's answer to Plaintiff's complaint submitted on June 4, 2004, Defendant alleged several affirmative defenses. Among those defenses
1

Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM

Document 94

Filed 03/02/2007

Page 1 of 4

1 2

alleged, Defendant asserts that the acts of which Plaintiff complains were justified by legitimate business reasons that were not the result of any intension to discriminate against Plaintiff. However, Defendants have not and cannot demonstrate a legitimate

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

business reason for refusing Plaintiff's request as required by the ADA.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Do Defendants contend that allowing Plaintiff to sit on a soft cushion chair for fifteen to thirty (15-30) minutes after standing for one (1) hour was not justified in light of the overall financial resources of the United States Post Office. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Do Defendants contend that allowing Plaintiff to sit on a soft cushion chair for fifteen to thirty (1 5-30) minutes after standing for one (1) hour was not justified in light of the overall size of the United States Post Office. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Objection, this interrogatory is unintelligible and vague. Without waiving any objections, see response to Interrogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Do Defendants contend that given the functions of the work force of the United States Post Office, Plaintiff request to sit on a soft cushion chair for fifteen to thirty (1 5-30) minutes after standing for one (1) hour was not justified? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Objection, this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous and unintelligible and compound. Without waving any objections, No. CONCLUSION Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court grant an order precluding Defendant from claiming legitimate business reason as an affirmative defense. ...... .....
2

Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM

Document 94

Filed 03/02/2007

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2007

s/Rosval A. Patterson Rosval A. Patterson 777 E. Thomas Rd. #210 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Attorney for the Plaintiff

3

Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM

Document 94

Filed 03/02/2007

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 2nd of March, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF Systems for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing for the following CM/ECF registrants: [email protected]

By:

s/Stephanie Coulter Stephanie Coulter

4

Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM

Document 94

Filed 03/02/2007

Page 4 of 4