United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LFMINE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motions In
Limine. Dkt. #56. Defendant does not oppose several of
Plaintiff s motions, but opposes others. Dkts. #56 and #58.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court now GRANTS IN
PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs Motions In Limine.
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, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984). To
resolve such motions, the Court is guided by Fed.R.Evid. 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.Evid. 401. But 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.Evid. 403.
Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire
first Motion In Limine, Plaintiff seeks an Order allowing one
hour of attorney-conducted voir dire. Dkt. #56 at 2. As
discussed at the Pretrial Conference, it is this Court's
typical practice to allow attorneys to conduct voir dire.
However, the Court will not allow an hour for each party.
Instead, the Court will allow the parties 30 minutes each.
Accordingly, this motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
Exclusion of Defense of Reasonable Reporting Policies and
Failure to Report
next seeks an Order excluding any Faragher-Ellerth
defense on the basis that Defendant failed to plead such an
affirmative defense in its Answer to the Complaint. Dkt. #56
at 2-3. Defendant asserts that it is not relying on such a
defense; however, it asserts that the facts underlying such a
defense are relevant because they rebut claims of a hostile
work environment. Dkt. #58 at 2-4. The Court agrees that the
subject testimony is relevant and probative to the issue of
vicarious liability. Accordingly, the Court DENIES this
Evidence of Collective Bargaining Agreement
next moves to exclude the introduction of, or any reference
to, a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") in
this matter, on the basis that it is inadmissible hearsay and
irrelevant. Dkt. #56 at 4. Defendant responds that the CBA is
relevant to explaining the corrective action it took with
respect to Mr. Mell, and that it should be allowed to
reference the CBA for that purpose. Dkt. #58 at 5-6. However,
Defendant does not object to excluding the CBA as an exhibit.
Id. The Court agrees with Defendant that references
to the CBA are relevant to the issue of corrective action,
and satisfy the governing Rules of Evidence. Accordingly,
this motion is DENIED, except to the extent that neither
party will introduce the CBA as an exhibit.
Plaintiff's Medical Bills and Records
next moves to exclude Plaintiffs medical records and bills
unless such evidence is introduced through a competent
medical expert. Dkt. #56 at 4-7. Defendant responds that the
records are relevant to its damages defense, that Plaintiff
has put her mental health condition at issue in this matter,
and that both the medical and expert witnesses expected to
testify at trial are qualified to introduce and discuss the
records. Dkt. #58 at 6-9. However, Defendant does not object
to the exclusion of medical bills. Id. at 9. For the
reasons discussed by Defendant, the Court agrees that