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 Telephone: (480) 839-4711 Facsimile: (480) 452-1753 Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case No. CIV 03-2077-PHX-EHC PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE RE: PRE-EMPLOYMENT RECORDS AND TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT GANT

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. ) ) )

(Honorable Earl H. Carroll)

Plaintiffs move for an order in limine precluding any testimony or production of documents by Defendants regarding the employment history of Plaintiff Robert Gant prior to becoming employed by Defendant Pinal County. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Robert Gant began working for the Pinal County Sheriff's Office ("PCSO") in 1980. In 1985, Plaintiff left the employ of PCSO and was hired with the Eloi Police Department in the city of Eloi, Arizona. Plaintiff was subsequently terminated from the Eloi Police Department. In 1988, Plaintiff was hired again by PCSO, and promoted to the rank of corporal in 1991. Defendant has offered no evidence, either documentary or via deposition testimony,
Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC Document 89 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 1 of 3

Such evidence must be excluded as not

relevant and prejudicial to the instant matter. Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403.

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

that would justify raising Plaintiff's pre-employment history as a matter that would either be relevant to the instant case and/or not 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. Plaintiff's employment with the Eloi Police Department and, more particularly, the reasons for his termination, are not relevant to the instant matter. Plaintiff's allegations in his Complaint, and the causes of action that are now before the Court ­ including discrimination, hostile work environment, and negligent supervision ­ are not even consequentially related to his former employment with the Eloi Police Department. 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 Plaintiff's employment with the Eloi Police Department was deemed relevant, any evidence of Plaintiff's termination by the Eloi Police Department would have no bearing on whether Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff, created a hostile work environment, or negligently supervised its employees. The sole purpose of such evidence would be to unfairly prejudice the jurors' minds with respect to the events that are relevant to the instant matter, confuse the issues of this matter, and/or mislead the jury to draw conclusions that could or would hinder their ability to address those matters that are relevant. The Defendants should not be allowed to present evidence, whether documentary or testimonial, concerning Plaintiff's employment with the Eloi Police Department. III. CONCLUSION The Defendants should be precluded from offering any evidence of Plaintiff Robert Gant's employment with the Eloi Police Department, or making any reference or inference thereto, as such evidence should be precluded under Rules 401 and 403, Fed.R.Evid.

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

--2-- Document 89 Filed 06/09/2006

Page 2 of 3

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this _9th__ day of June, 2006. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. GREGORY, P.C. By: __s/ Robert M. Gregory_________________ Robert M. Gregory Attorney for Plaintiffs

ORIGINAL of the foregoing electronically filed this _9th_ day of June, 2006, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Arizona ONE COPY of the foregoing mailed this _9th_ of June, 2006, to:
Hon. Earl H. Carroll United States District Court Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse 401 West 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

--3-- Document 89 Filed 06/09/2006

Page 3 of 3