United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
JOHN W. MULLIN, II, Plaintiff,
TEMCO MACHINERY, INC., Defendant.
ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS
TANYA WALTON PRATT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on several pending motions. The parties have each filed Motions in Limine (Filing No. 84 and Filing No. 87), and Motions for Separation of Witnesses (Filing No. 97 and Filing No. 103), as well as objections to and motions to exclude witnesses and exhibits (Filing No. 93, Filing No. 94 and Filing No. 99). A trial in this matter under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") is set for October 20, 2014. The Court makes the following rulings in advance of the final pretrial conference scheduled for September 24, 2014.
I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE
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 Technologies, 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. Mr. Mullin's Motion in limine (Filing No. 84)
1. The Sale of a Fire Truck
Plaintiff, John W. Mullin, II ("Mr. Mullin"), seeks the exclusion of four categories of evidence. Defendant, Temco Machinery, Inc. ("Temco"), does not object to the exclusion of evidence relating to Mr. Mullin's role in the sale of a fire truck in New Albany, Indiana in 2014, thus the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this category.
2. 183 Pages of Documents Produced on August 20, 2014
Mr. Mullin seeks the exclusion of 183 pages of documents he alleges were produced in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). Temco argues that it produced the additional discovery in compliance with the Joint Position Statement Following Remand filed by the parties on November 22, 2013 (Filing No. 68.). In the Position Statement, the parties agreed that additional discovery should be completed within 60 days of trial, absent leave of court. The Court first finds that many of the 183 pages have not been marked as trial exhibits, and to the extent that such materials are not intended to be used at trial, Mr. Mullin's Motion is DENIED. However, several of the pages have been identified as exhibits and the Court will discuss them below.
Mr. Mullin objects to Temco's Exhibit 214, which is a sales record for Mr. Mullin that was produced on August 20, 2014. Mr. Mullin explains that this information was sought from Temco in 2012 on two separate occasions, yet only a partial version of Exhibit 214 was produced. The Court acknowledges that the Joint Position Statement provided for additional discovery, but the Court is concerned by Temco's alleged withholding of documents until after appeal. The Court will defer ruling on this portion of the motion until the final pretrial conference and the parties shall be prepared to argue their position on this issue.
Mr. Mullin also objects to Temco's Exhibit 217, an email communication between Mike Freely and Greg Hinkens, which was also produced on August 20, 2014. Mr. Mullin simply argues that the late disclosure violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and that it is irrelevant. Without more, the Court cannot say at this stage that the production of the email was a discovery violation and that the content is inadmissible for any purpose. Therefore, the Motion is DENIED as to this evidence.
3. Roger Johnson's Statements about Mr. Mullin's Work Performance
Mr. Mullin seeks exclusion of Roger Johnson's ("Mr. Johnson") statement about Mr. Mullin's work performance for lack of personal knowledge. Mr. Johnson testified at his deposition as to conversations he had with Temco management staff Mike Mikoola and Ronald Baylog regarding Mr. Mullin's work performance. Temco argues that Mr. Johnson has personal knowledge of the conversations and that his testimony is relevant to whether Temco management gave pretextual reasons for Mr. Mullin's termination. The Court agrees that Mr. Johnson's testimony could be admissible as non-hearsay to rebut Mr. Mullin's arguments that the reasons were pretextual or to ...