United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
TANYA WALTON PRATT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Motions in Limine filed by Defendants Indiana University Health, Inc. and Healthnet, Inc. (collectively "IU Health") (Dkt. 52) and Plaintiff Amy Martinez ("Ms. Martinez") (Dkt. 61). The Court will address each motion in limine in turn, and will address additional facts relevant to each motion as needed.
The facts of this case are set forth at length in the Court's Entry on IU Health's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 48). In short, Ms. Martinez was employed by IU Health as an Electronic Medical Records Analyst from August 23, 2010 until she was terminated on or about January 21, 2011. She alleges that she was terminated in retaliation for complaints about alleged discriminatory hiring practices by her supervisor, Lauren Borgmann.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not admissible for any purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Unless evidence meets this exacting standard, evidentiary rulings must be deferred until trial so questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice may be resolved in context. Id. at 1400-01. Moreover, denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion is admissible; rather, it only means that, at the pretrial stage, the Court is unable to determine whether the evidence should be excluded. Id. at 1401.
A. Ms. Martinez's Motion in Limine (Dkt. 61)
Ms. Martinez asks the Court to exclude any testimony regarding her two divorces and bankruptcies filed prior to this action. IU Health has not filed any objection to the exclusion of this evidence, and the Court finds that it is not relevant to the claims or arguments of either party, and is therefore inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Ms. Martinez's Motion in Limine. (Dkt. 61)
B. IU Health's Motion in Limine (Dkt. 52)
IU Health's motion in limine asks the Court to exclude thirteen categories of evidence at trial. Ms. Martinez does not object to the exclusion of evidence related to settlement negotiations or compromise; non-disclosed expert opinion; the filings of the parties' motions in limine, summary judgment, and any pre-trial discovery requests, disputes, and/or motions; and the affidavits of nonparties Lisa Utter and Melinda Rosa. As to these categories of evidence, IU Health's motion is GRANTED. Ms. Martinez objects to the exclusion of the remaining categories of evidence in IU Health's motion. Each of the remaining categories will be addressed in turn.
1. Evidence regarding front pay and back pay
IU Health objects to the admission of evidence pertaining to the issue of front pay and back pay and argues that such evidence should not be presented to the jury, as the determination of the award of front pay and back pay is an equitable determination to be made by the court following a finding of retaliation by the jury. Ms. Martinez argues that evidence relating to back and front pay are relevant to other compensatory damages in this case. The Court agrees with IU Health that back pay and front pay awards under Title VII are equitable issues for the Court's determination rather than the jury's; however, such evidence may be relevant to show how the pay differential resulted in other compensatory damages. Frazier v. Ind. Dep't of Labor, No. IP 01-198-C-TK, 2003 WL 21254424 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 17, 2003) (order in limine precluding evidence of front or back pay did not preclude general reference to the existence of pay differential if it is linked to a claim for mental anguish or emotional distress). Ms. Martinez has stipulated that she does not seek compensatory damages due to mental anguish and emotional distress, but she may present such evidence as it relates to future pecuniary losses and other nonpecuniary losses, such as lost future earning capacity. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3); Williams v. ...