Wilkins v. Kmart Corp.
| Decision Date | 10 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-4074-SAC.,05-4074-SAC. |
| Citation | 487 F.Supp.2d 1216 |
| Parties | Jackie R. WILKINS, Plaintiff, v. KMART CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
David O. Alegria, McCullough, Wareheim & Labunker, P.A., Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff.
Anthony B. Byergo, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.
The case comes before the court on the plaintiff's motion in, limine (Dk. 82), the defendant's motion in limine (Dk. 85), the plaintiff's objections to the defendant's exhibits (Dk. 79), and the defendant's objections to plaintiff's witness and exhibit list (Dk. 80). Based on the arguments and record made in the parties' briefs, the court will address those issues and objections that can be decided properly before trial.
A motion in limine presents the trial court with the opportunity "to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial." Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2nd Cir.1996) (quotation and citation omitted); see also see United States v. Cline, 188 F.Supp.2d 1287, 1291-1292 (D.Kan.2002), aff'd 349 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir.2003). Though such rulings can work a savings in time, cost, effort and preparation, a court is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of evidence. Consequently, a court should reserve its rulings for those instances when the evidence plainly is "inadmissible on all potential grounds," Townsend v. Benya, 287 F.Supp.2d 868, 872 (N.D.Ill. 2003), and it should typically defer rulings on relevancy and unfair prejudice objections until trial when the factual context is developed, see Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 987, 96 S.Ct. 395, 46 L.Ed.2d 303 (1975).
A trial court may alter its limine ruling based on developments at trial or on its own sound judicial discretion. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984). Some in limine rulings, like those involving Rule 403, "are necessarily preliminary because the required balancing may be reassessed as the evidence actually comes in." United States v. Martinez, 76 F.3d 1145, 1152 (10th Cir.1996) (citation omitted). "A district court may change its ruling at any time for whatever reason it deems appropriate." Id. (quotation omitted).
The threshold inquiry on the admissibility of evidence is its relevance defined as "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. Relevant evidence is admissible, and irrelevant evidence is not. Fed.R.Evid. 402. 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.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Dk. 82).
The plaintiff brought a workers' compensation retaliatory discharge case against a prior employer that went to trial and resulted in a jury verdict against the plaintiff. Wilkins v. Packerware Corp., No. 04-4024-KGS. The plaintiff seeks to preclude any mention of this prior lawsuit or its introduction in the instant case. The plaintiff argues lack of relevance, improper character evidence, potential for jury confusion, and unfair prejudice. The defendant counters that evidence of the plaintiff's prior workers' compensation injury is relevant to the issue of its intent in that the defendant knew of this work-related injury prior to hiring the plaintiff. The defendant also contends the prior injury is relevant in proving the plaintiff's knowledge and experience with properly reporting work-related injuries and injury-related absences and in proving the reasonableness of the defendant's belief that the plaintiff would do the same.
The court denies the plaintiff's motion with respect to evidence of his prior work-related injury and his participation in other workers' compensation matters occurring before his termination on June 26, 2003. Such evidence may have relevance in proving the plaintiff's familiarity and knowledge with rights and responsibilities attendant to such matters. The court does not see unfair prejudice flowing from such limited evidence. The court, however, sustains the plaintiff's motion as to other evidence concerning the prior workers' compensation proceedings, the prior retaliatory discharge action, and the outcome of any such litigation, all of which appears to have occurred after his termination on June 26, 2003. As with any of its in limine rulings, the court will reconsider it upon a party's request and showing made outside of the jury's hearing.
The plaintiff seeks to preclude the defendant from offering evidence that contradicts the date of injury appearing on his initial injury report. The plaintiff now concedes he was not injured on that date as he was off work Oh funeral leave. The plaintiff, however, wants to lock the defendant into this fictional date, because the defendant assisted him in preparing the initial injury report and because the defendant stipulated to this date of injury in the workers' compensation proceedings.
The court denies the plaintiff's motion. Part of the plaintiff's evidentiary burden at trial will be showing that he sustained a work-related injury for which he might assert a workers' compensation claim. In deciding whether the plaintiff has carried his burden of persuasion, a jury is entitled to consider relevant evidence that contradicts the plaintiff's claimed injury, including evidence of the plaintiff's failure to give an accurate date of injury when initially reported. The evidence in question does not implicate any serious considerations under Rule 403. Finally, the parties' stipulation to the date of injury in the workers' compensation proceeding "is not a proper candidate for issue preclusion in this case." United States v. Botefuhr, 309 F.3d 1263, 1282 (10th Cir.2002) (quotation and citation omitted). The plaintiff does not show the stipulation in the workers' compensation proceeding to have been made with the manifest intent to bind the parties in all separate and subsequent actions. Id.
Because these absences are not asserted as a factor or justification for his termination, the plaintiff moves to exclude all argument and evidence regarding them. The plaintiff summarily challenges these earlier absences as irrelevant and immaterial and contends evidence of these absences will extend the trial and cause problems that can be solved by exclusion under Rule 403.
The court denies the plaintiff's motion. As shown in the defendant's response, the plaintiff's employment history during his probationary period is relevant on several important issues, including the plaintiff's credibility, as well as the defendant's knowledge and intent. Considering that the plaintiff's employment lasted, less than four months and his claimed injury allegedly occurred less than three weeks after he started work, the admission of the plaintiff's entire employment history does not trigger substantial Rule 403 questions.
The plaintiff seeks to keep the defendant from arguing or implying that the plaintiff did not call certain witnesses because their testimony would have been favorable for the defendant. On a related point, the plaintiff also objects as hearsay any statements offered of what others might have said had they been called as witnesses. The defendant concurs that neither party should argue any negative inference from a party's failure to call a witness equally available to the parties. On the parties agreement, the court sustains the plaintiff's motion insofar as the parties shall not argue negative inferences from the failure to call witnesses equally available to them nor speculate about the testimony of such absent witnesses.
The plaintiff asks the court to preclude the defendant's witnesses from offering opinions as to the motive or intent behind the defendant's actions. The plaintiff objects arguing inadmissible opinion testimony from lay witnesses, unfair prejudice, and invasion of the jury's province. The defendant correctly counters that a witness has personal knowledge of his or her own state of mind and intention when he or she acted and remains competent to testify about the same.
The plaintiff does not offer any viable ground for an in limine ruling that would preclude a defendant's witness from testifying on the basis of personal knowledge about his or her own state of mind and intentions while acting on behalf of the defendant. The court denies the plaintiff's motion to exclude such testimony.
The defendant agrees with the plaintiff that evidence of the amount of workers' compensation benefits paid to the plaintiff is irrelevant and inadmissible. The court sustains the plaintiff's motion on this issue.
Defendant's Motion in Limine (Dk. 85).
The defendant seeks a ruling that would limit the plaintiff to testifying about what he experienced and felt while using. Flexeril but preclude him from opining that Flexeril caused him dizziness and drowsiness. The defendant objects that the plaintiff lacks the medical training and knowledge to opine that the medical cause of his dizziness and drowsiness was Flexeril. Because people can experience different side effects from medication, the plaintiff proposes that the person taking the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodman v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't
...a court is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of evidence.” Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1219 (D.Kan.2007). In limine rulings are provisional. Such “rulings are not binding on the trial judge [who] may always change his mind ......
-
Naff v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co.
...Court "is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of evidence." Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1218 (D. Kan. 2007). The Sixth Circuit explained, "[A] better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence as they a......
-
Arberry v. Tejas Underground, LLC
...a court is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of evidence." Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1219 (D. Kan. 2007). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires the parties to disclose a "computation of each category......
-
Washington v. Hicks
...better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence as they arise [in trial]” as opposed to ruling on a motion in limine. Id. (quoting Sperberg, 519 F.2d at 712). Nevertheless, motions in limine are “an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious......