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 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. GREGORY, P.C. Robert M. Gregory, State Bar No. 021805 1930 S. Alma School Road, Suite A-115 Mesa, Arizona 85210 Tel: (480) 839-4711 Fax: (480) 452-1753 Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ROBERT GANT and BETTY GANT, husband and wife,

) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) ROGER VANDERPOOL, Sheriff of Pinal ) County; PINAL COUNTY, a political ) subdivision; JOHN DOES, I­X; JANE ) DOES, I­X; ABC-XYZ CORPORATIONS I- ) X; BLACK AND WHITE PARTNERSHIPS ) I-X, jointly and severally, ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

Case No. CV 03-2077-PHX-EHC PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE RE: TESTIMONY OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS BY DEFENDANTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF ROBERT GANT (Assigned to the Honorable Earl H. Carroll)

Plaintiffs move for an order in limine precluding any testimony by Defendants regarding disciplinary actions taken by Defendants against Plaintiff Robert Gant. Such evidence must be excluded as not relevant and prejudicial to the instant matter. Fed.R.Evid. 401 and 403. Plaintiffs move for this order based on the recent disclosure by Defendants (within the 30 day requirement for submitting motions in limine) of exhibits to be used at trial that will seek to disclose disciplinary actions taken by Defendants against Robert Gant. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Robert Gant took two tests for promotion during his employment with the Pinal County Sheriff's Office ("PCSO"). The first test for promotion to the rank of lieutenant
Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC Document 91 Filed 06/15/2006 Page 1 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

occurred in June 2001, and the second test for promotion to the rank of sergeant occurred in March 2004. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants discriminated against Robert Gant based on how Defendants administered these two tests. Plaintiffs' allegations in their Complaint that the Defendants intentionally discriminated against Robert Gant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is based not on disciplinary actions taken by Defendants against Robert Gant, but on how Defendants administered these two promotional examinations. Any testimony that Defendants would offer concerning disciplinary actions taken by Defendants against Robert Gant would be beyond the scope of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the factual and legal basis upon which Plaintiffs seek relief, and would either be not relevant to the instant case and/or prejudicial. II. ARGUMENT Rule 401 defines "Relevant evidence" as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 401. Disciplinary action taken by Defendants against Robert Gant is not relevant to whether Defendants intentionally discriminated against Robert Gant in the administration of the two examinations through which he sought promotion. Testimony by Defendants of any disciplinary actions taken against Robert Gant, whether before or after the two promotional examinations, is not related in any way to Plaintiffs' claims, and would have no tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to this matter more or less probable, and should therefore be excluded as not relevant. Rule 403 states that "[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Fed.R.Evid. 403. Even if disciplinary actions taken by Defendants against Robert Gant were relevant, any such evidence would have no bearing on whether Defendants intentionally discriminated against Robert Gant in the administration of two promotional examinations. The sole purpose of such evidence would be to cast Robert Gant in a
--2-- Document 91 Filed 06/15/2006

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

bad light and would unfairly prejudice the jurors' minds with respect to the issues that are relevant to this matter. Moreover, such evidence would certainly confuse the issues of this case, such that the trial would focus almost entirely on whether there was a causal connection between the disciplinary actions taken by Defendants against Robert Gant and Defendants failing to promote him, which is not a claim that Plaintiffs have made in this case. Finally, such evidence would mislead the jury to draw conclusions about Robert Gant that could or would hinder their ability to address those matters that are the essence of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, the Defendants should not be allowed to present any evidence of disciplinary actions taken by Defendants against Robert Gant. III. CONCLUSION The Defendants should be precluded from offering any evidence of disciplinary actions taken by Defendants against Robert Gant, as such evidence should be precluded under Rules 401 and 403, Fed.R.Evid.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of June, 2006. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. GREGORY, P.C. By: s/Robert M. Gregory Robert M. Gregory Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

--3-- Document 91 Filed 06/15/2006

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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

ORIGINAL of foregoing electronically filed this 15th day of June, 2006, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Arizona ONE COPY of the foregoing mailed this 15th day of June, 2006, to: Hon. Earl H. Carroll United States District Court Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse 401 W. Washington Street, SPC 48 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2218 Georgia A. Staton JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants

s/Robert Gregory

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

--4-- Document 91 Filed 06/15/2006

Page 4 of 4