Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Georgia A. Staton, Bar #004863 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. Suite 800 2901 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012 602-263-1700 Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Kenneth Lyon & Towanda Lyon, for Taralyn D. Lyon, Plaintiff, v. Estrella Foothills High School Henry Schmitt, Superintendent of Schools for Estrella Foothills School, Eric Godfrey, Jerry Nunez, Marty Arambel, Phillip Echeverria, Jeannie Guy, Jerry Kerr, and Gary Mayfield, Defendants. NO. CIV 03-2306-PHX-JAT

MOTION IN LIMINE: FACTS AND ISSUES DECIDED AT SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 401 and 403, this Court should preclude testimony regarding facts and issues already dismissed by this Court because they are not relevant and will distract and confuse the jury. I. Background

Defendants (the "District") believe that Plaintiff will try to interject issues into the trial that have already been decided and dismissed by this Court and the state courts. Typically, a motion requesting such limitations would not be necessary. However, since the Court's Order on Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's counsel has taken a number of depositions during which he questioned deponents on a number of issues that have already been dismissed. Plaintiff's counsel has also refused to acknowledge Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 61 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 1 of 6

that the fact the Plaintiff consumed alcohol is an undisputed fact despite the fact that the issue has been ruled upon by the Superior Court and Court of Appeals and disposed of by this Court at Summary Judgment. A. Plaintiff Cannot Relitigate Claims That Were Dismissed at Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserted claims for denial of Equal Protection and Due Process, Double Jeopardy, violation of the Right to Counsel, False Imprisonment, and Defamation and Slander. On August 30, 2005, in response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, this Court dismissed all of those claims except the Equal Protection claim. See Order, August 30, 2005, pp. 1, 21. Despite the fact that the only issue before the Court is whether the District denied Plaintiff equal protection, Plaintiff's counsel spent the better part of six depositions questioning the deponents on issues that have already been ruled on. For example, although the issue of whether Plaintiff received due process is no longer a viable claim,1 Plaintiff's counsel asked the following questions: · As a general policy, what factors did the board consider in determining discipline? See Deposition of Gary Mayfield, p. 15 (attached hereto as Exhibit A); Deposition of Marty Arambel, p. 11 (attached hereto as Exhibit B); Deposition of Jeanine Guy, pp. 21-22 (attached hereto as Exhibit C); Deposition of Jerry Kerr, pp. 14-15 (attached hereto as Exhibit D); Deposition of Phillip Echeverria, pp. 13-16 (attached hereto as Exhibit E). How important are grades and extra-curricular activities in determining discipline? See Deposition of Marty Arambel, p. 13 (attached hereto as Exhibit B); Deposition of Jeanine Guy, p. 15 (attached hereto as Exhibit C); Deposition of Jerry Kerr, pp. 15-16 (attached hereto as Exhibit D); Deposition of Phillip Echeverria, p.

·

The Superior Court held "Ms. Lyon was afforded notice and a hearing and, therefore, the court finds that she was afforded due process." See Minute Entry Order, September 29, 2003, p. 5. The Court of Appeals, reviewing the issue de novo, affirmed the Superior Court. See Memorandum of Decision, December 14, 2004, p.9. Finally, this Court held that Plaintiff is precluded from re-litigating this issue in Federal Court. See Order, August, 30, 2005, p. 12. 2 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 61 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 2 of 6

1

8 (attached hereto as Exhibit E); Deposition of Dr. Henry Schmitt, p. 18 (attached hereto as Exhibit F). · Did the district policy afford students due process? See Deposition of Marty Arambel, p. 25-26 (attached hereto as Exhibit B); Deposition of Gary Mayfield, pp. 9-10 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Was the discipline policy fair? See Deposition of Gary Mayfield, pp.25-26 (attached hereto as Exhibit A); Deposition of Marty Arambel, pp. 21-22 (attached hereto as Exhibit B); Deposition of Jeanine Guy, p. 22 (attached hereto as Exhibit C); Deposition of Jerry Kerr, pp. 17-18, 22-23 (attached hereto as Exhibit D).

·

Plaintiff's counsel also asked each and every board member whether "intent" or "mens rea" to commit the offense of consuming alcohol on campus should be considered in determining discipline. See Deposition of Gary Mayfield, p. 23-24 (attached hereto as Exhibit A); Deposition of Marty Arambel, p. 13 (attached hereto as Exhibit B); Deposition of Jeanine Guy, p. 17 (attached hereto as Exhibit C); Deposition of Jerry Kerr, p. 19 (attached hereto as Exhibit D); Deposition of Phillip Echeverria, p. 14 (attached hereto as Exhibit E). This question has already been addressed by the Court of Appeals, which held that the district policy on alcohol contains no scienter requirement, nor does it need to in order to pass constitutional muster. See Order of Arizona Court of Appeals, December 14, 2004, p.7. Further, this Court held that Plaintiff is estopped from re-litigating claims addressed by the state courts. B. Plaintiff cannot relitigate factual issues that have already been ruled upon.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleged multiple counts against the District for the actions it took in suspending Plaintiff from high school for consuming alcohol on school grounds. Whether Plaintiff actually consumed alcohol has been decided in no fewer than five fora. · The District afforded Plaintiff an initial hearing in front of a hearing officer. The hearing officer found that Plaintiff had consumed 3 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 61 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 3 of 6

alcohol on campus and recommended a ten day suspension. Plaintiff appealed her suspension to the District Governing Board. · The Board affirmed the Hearing Officer's finding that Plaintiff had consumed alcohol on campus and found that Plaintiff's discipline should include and additional five days suspension and a behavior contract for the remainder of the year. Plaintiff filed a Special Action in the Superior Court challenging the Board's decision. The Superior Court found that the Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously or abuse its discretion in affirming the hearing officer's finding that the Plaintiff did consume alcohol on campus. The Superior Court further held "her characterization of her actions as a `sip' does not negate the fact that she drank alcohol, and, therefore, she violated school policy." Order of Superior Court, September 29, 2003, p. 4. Plaintiff appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Once again, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court, holding "[s]ubstantial evidence supports the Superior Court's order affirming the hearing officer's findings that [Plaintiff] consumed alcohol in violation of the district policy." Order of Arizona Court of Appeals, December 14, 2004, p.7.2 Finally, this Court held that Plaintiff is estopped from bringing any claims that were already decided by the state courts. See Order, August 30, 2005. Plaintiff should be precluded from relitigating the issue of whether Taralyn Lyon consumed alcohol on campus.

·

·

·

This issue has been heard and decided by the Hearing Officer, the District Governing Board and the Superior Court. These decisions were affirmed by the Arizona Court of Appeals. This Court has acknowledged that these determinations as undisputed facts in its Order on Defendants' M otion for Summary Judgment. The only issue currently before the jury is whether the District denied Plaintiff equal protection when it suspended her for consuming alcohol on campus. The question of whether she committed the underlying offense has already been heard and decided in a number of fora. Plaintiff should not be permitted a sixth bite at the apple. The Court of Appeals also held that the district policy on alcohol contains no scienter requirement. As a result, Plaintiff is also foreclosed from relitigating the issue of whether mens rea is required. Plaintiff's counsel has focused on this issue in numerous depositions and it is anticipated that he will attempt to address it at trial. 4 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 61 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 4 of 6
2

II.

Legal Argument. A. The Evidence is Irrelevant.

The Federal Rules of Evidence allow for the admission of relevant evidence. Relevant evidence is admitted in order to assist the fact finder in making a decision. The jury does not need to make decisions regarding all of the claims in Plaintiff's Complaint. The only issue before the jury is whether the District denied Plaintiff equal protection. The other claims, Due Process, Double Jeopardy, Right to Counsel, False Imprisonment, and Defamation and Slander have already been dismissed. Further, whether Plaintiff did or did not consume alcohol has already been decided. It is irrelevant as to whether she was afforded less due process than other similarly situated students. There is nothing further for the jury to consider with regard to these issues and facts. Thus, the evidence is irrelevant and, therefore, inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-402. B. The Evidence Would Confuse The Jury

Under Fed. R. Evid. 403 this evidence may be excluded because its probative value (limited at best) is substantially outweighed by the risks of prejudice, confusion, and waste of time. Allowing the Plaintiff to present evidence on claims that have already been decided by this Court and the state courts would waste judicial resources and add unnecessary complexity to the jury's deliberative process. This evidence would create several trials within a trial on issues that have already been decided, distracting the jury from the only issue they need to consider: Whether the district denied Ms. Lyon equal protection. The probative value of any testimony regarding Plaintiff's dismissed claims clearly outweighed by the risk of prejudice and confusion and would be a waste of the Court's time.

5 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 61 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 5 of 6

III.

Conclusion. Defendants respectfully request that this Court limit the testimony at trial

to the facts relating directly to whether the District denied Taralyn Lyon equal protection. Evidence regarding Plaintiff's dismissed claims and undisputed facts does not directly relate to that issue and should be excluded. DATED this 17th day of March, 2006. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. By s/Georgia A. Staton Georgia A. Staton 2901 North Central Ave., Ste. 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants

ORIGINAL of the foregoing filed this 17 th day of March, 2006 with: Clerk of the U.S. District Court District of Arizona COPY of the foregoing mailed this 17 th day of M arch, 2006, to: Hon. James A. Teilborg United States District Court Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse Suite 523 401 West Washington Street, SPC 51 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2154 Joseph E. Collins, Esq. 10801 North 32nd Street, Suite 3 Phoenix, Arizona 85028 Attorney for Plaintiff s/Gloria Gray

1597827_1

6 Document 61 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 6 of 6

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT