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: EVIDENCE OF PERFORMANCE BY PLAINTIFF ROBERT GANT AND OTHER PERSONS ON THE ASSESSMENT CENTER EXAMINATION (Assigned to the Honorable Earl H. Carroll)

Plaintiffs move for an order in limine precluding any testimony by Defendants regarding the performance by Robert Gant or any other persons on the assessment center examination taken on or about June 11-13, 2001. 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 show videotapes of Robert Gant and other persons making a presentation during the administration of the assessment center and the results from the assessment center.

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 90

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

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 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. With respect to the first test for promotion to the rank of lieutenant, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants intentionally discriminated against Robert Gant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on how and when the assessment center was administered, not on the results, format or content of such test. Any testimony that Defendants would offer concerning how Robert Gant or any other person performed on the assessment center 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. How Robert Gant or any other person performed on the assessment center is not relevant to whether Defendants intentionally discriminated against Robert Gant in the administration of the assessment center. Plaintiffs are not challenging the format, content or results of the assessment center, but are challenging the Defendants discriminatory application of the testing procedure for the apparent purpose of filtering and pre-selecting promotional candidates. Testimony by Defendants of how Robert Gant or other persons performed on the assessment center 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
--2-- Document 90 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

misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Fed.R.Evid. 403. Even if Robert Gant's or other persons' performance on the assessment center was relevant, any such evidence would have no bearing on whether Defendants intentionally discriminated against Robert Gant in the administration of the assessment center. The sole purpose of such evidence would be to cast Robert Gant in a bad light and would unfairly prejudice the jurors' minds with respect to the issues that are relevant to this matter. Moreover, such evidence would confuse the issues of this case, inasmuch as jurors would be called upon to review the content, format and/or results of the assessment center, which is not an issue that Plaintiffs have raised in their Complaint. 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 Robert Gant's performance or any other candidates' performance on the assessment center, 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 90 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 90 Filed 06/15/2006

Page 4 of 4