Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Njoroge v. Vocational Training Institute, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

December 26, 2017

PATRICK NJOROGE, Plaintiff,
v.
VOCATIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTES, INC. d/b/a/ PIMA MEDICAL INSTITUTE, Defendant.

          ORDER

          HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motions in limine. Dkt. #30. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's motions in limine.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This matter is set for trial on two claims: whether Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of Title VI and Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) because he filed an appeal from his May 2014 termination from the Occupational Therapy Assistant ("OTA") program at the Pima Medical Institute ("Pima"). The details of Plaintiff s allegations against Defendant are set forth in this Court's Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and will not be repeated here. Dkt. #32.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Parties may file motions in limine before or during trial "to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984). To decide on the motions in limine, the Court is generally guided by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 401 and 403. Specifically, the Court considers whether evidence "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, " and whether "the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 401. However, the Court may exclude relevant evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 403.

         III. MUTUALLY AGREED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

         Plaintiff agrees to refrain from offering any testimony and evidence relating to the perceived effect of Plaintiff s alleged paper on "Kikuyu culture". Dkt. # 33 at 6.

         Plaintiff agrees to refrain from offering any testimony and evidence relating to any alleged favorable treatment of any other students in the Occupational Therapy Assistant ("OTA") program at Pima. Dkt. #33 at 7. Plaintiff also agrees to refrain from offering testimony and evidence relating to any alleged unfair treatment of any other students in the OTA program. Id.

         Plaintiff agrees to refrain from offering any testimony and evidence regarding the parties' motions in limine or any other motions filed in this lawsuit. Id.

         The parties agree that all Orders issued on the parties' motions in limine will be binding on witnesses. Dkt. # 33 at 8.

         The parties agree that all non-party witnesses who will testify at trial will be excluded from the courtroom prior to their testimony. Id.

         IV. DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

         Defendant moves that Plaintiff not be allowed to offer any evidence, testimony, or exhibits at trial, and that the Court deem all of the facts set forth in Defendant's Pretrial Statement as stipulated. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant's request to confer regarding the parties' Pretrial Order, failed to identify any witnesses or exhibits for trial, failed to contest the statement of facts in Defendant's Pretrial Statement, and failed to meet and confer regarding Defendant's motions in limine. In his Response, Plaintiff represented that he sent Defendant his Pretrial Statement and a proposed Pretrial Order several days before the Pretrial Order was due, and that the parties then conferred regarding the Pretrial Order. Plaintiff argues that Defendant was not prejudiced by his untimely disclosures because Plaintiff only intends to offer one witness, himself, and because all of the exhibits he intends to offer in support of his argument are documents Defendant is currently in possession of. Defendant offers no other argument as to how it has been prejudiced by Plaintiffs untimely disclosure such that the exclusion of all of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.