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, v. NO. CIV 03-2306-PHX-JAT

Plaintiffs, MOTION IN LIMINE: REFERENCE TO KENNETH CODY LYON'S ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT

Estrella Foothills High School Henry Schmidt, Superintendent of Schools for Estrella Foothills School, Eric Godfrey, Jerry Nunez, Marty Arambel, Phillip Echeverria, Jeannie Guy, Jerry Kerr, and Gary Mayfield, Defendants.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 401 and 403, this Court should preclude testimony regarding Plaintiff's brother, Kenneth Cody ("K.C.") Lyon's lawsuit against the District because such testimony is not relevant and will distract and confuse the jury. Background It is anticipated that Plaintiff will seek to introduce evidence regarding K.C. Lyon's previous lawsuit against the District. In Plaintiff's Amended Complaint she alleged that "Defendants have unfairly treated Plaintiff as a result of her brother's lawsuit and accusation that a teacher in the school district has sexually molested him." Amended Complaint, ¶ 12. Plaintiff, however, has not, indeed cannot, show any connection between her situation and that of her brother. There is no evidence that any Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 60 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 1 of 4

of the District Governing Board members had any knowledge of the existence of K.C. Lyon's lawsuit when the issue of what sanction should be imposed on Taralyn Lyon was before them. Plaintiff's counsel deposed each member of the Board. He had ample time and opportunity to develop this "theory." He did not, nor could he. In fact, Dr. Schmitt, the Superintendent, was the only administrator who was aware of the lawsuit and his only involvement with Ms. Lyon's disciplinary process was to make sure that the Principal followed the policy in his recommendation to the Board. See Deposition of Dr. Henry Schmitt, p. 6-7 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Plaintiff does not have any evidence whatsoever that links Mr. Lyon's lawsuit with her treatment by the board. She cannot simply raise the specter of some imagined connection and ask the jury to speculate as to whether it exists. As a result, any reference to K.C. Lyon's lawsuit against the District is irrelevant. It would serve only to unnecessarily engender animosity toward the District. Further, testimony regarding another lawsuit, based on a completely different set of facts and involving different parties would simply confuse and distract the jury from the only issue that is for them to decide - whether the District denied Ms. Lyon equal protection when it disciplined her for consuming alcohol on campus. 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. Evidence regarding Plaintiff's brother's legal claims have no bearing on this case. Plaintiff has no evidence whatsoever that the District Governing Board had knowledge of K.C. Lyon's claims, or that it considered those claims in determining Plaintiff's discipline. The details of K.C. Lyon's lawsuit against the District simply will not assist the jury in making a decision as to whether the District denied Taralyn Lyon equal 2 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 60 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 2 of 4

protection. The factual situation alleged by K.C. Lyon in his lawsuit against the District has does not make it more probably than not that Taralyn Lyon was treated differently than other similarly situated students. 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 of K.C. Lyon's lawsuit against the District would put facts before the jury that have absolutely nothing to do with the case before them. Furthermore, the prurient nature of the allegations in Mr. Lyon's lawsuit make them especially distracting and prejudicial. This would no doubt distract them from the only issue they need to consider: Whether the district denied Ms. Lyon equal protection. The probative value of any testimony regarding K.C. Lyon's lawsuit against the District is clearly outweighed by the risk of prejudice and confusion. 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. The details regarding K.C. Lyon's legal action against the District do 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

3 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 60 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 3 of 4

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 16 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

1597577_1

4 Document 60 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT