Vogel v. E.D. Bullard Company, No. 5:2012cv00011 - Document 121 (E.D. Ky. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) 79 Motion in Limine, 81 Motion in Limine, 82 Motion in Limine, 83 Motion in Limine, and 85 Motion in Limine are GRANTED. (2) All evidence re Pla's abilities and experience prior to his employment w ED Bullard Co is EXCLUDED. (3) All testimony and evidence re Eric Pasch's relationship w his son are EXCLUDED. (4) All testimony of Peter A. Kunk is EXCLUDED. (5) All testimony of Debbie Kenny is EXCLUDED. (6) All evidence and testimony re Pla's conversations w Glen Weingarth are EXCLUDED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 10/16/2013. (SCD)cc: COR
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON JAMES D. VOGEL, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. E.D. BULLARD COMPANY, Defendant. ** This is matter ** before ** the ** Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-11-JMH MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ** Court on Defendant E.D. Bullard Company s ( Bullard ) Motions in Limine to Exclude All Testimony and Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's Abilities and Experience Prior to Joining E.D. Bullard [DE 79], to Exclude All Testimony and Evidence About Eric Pasch's Relationship With His Son [DE 81], to Exclude All Testimony of Peter Debbie A. Kunk [DE 82], to Exclude All Testimony Kenny [DE 83], and to Exclude All Evidence and with Glen Testimony About Plaintiff's Weingarth [DE 85]. 102, 103, motions. 104, Conversations of Plaintiff has filed Responses [DE 101, 107], stating his objections to these No Replies in further support of the Motions in Limine have been filed, and the time for doing so has now expired. Having considered these motions, the Court concludes that they should be granted. Evidence is relevant if . . . it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. . . and . . . the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. evidence unless is admissible otherwise Relevant provided by relevant law or rule, and [i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 402. Further, [t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: misleading unfair the prejudice, jury, undue confusing delay, the wasting needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. issues, time, or See Fed. R. Evid. 403. With these rules in mind, the resolution of Defendant s motions in limine is a straightforward matter. The issue to be tried is quite limited: whether Vogel has a right under the parties Agreement to keep the signing bonus paid to him so long because either (1) his employment was not terminated for cause or (2) his employment was terminated for cause but the employer s decision was taken in bad faith, i.e., was not justified. Thus, the trier of fact will need to consider facts related to Plaintiff s 2 performance which during informed his tenure Bullard s at the decision company to and facts terminate his employment. Testimony and evidence about Vogel s abilities and experience prior to joining Bullard and his conversations with a recruiter, Glen Weingarth, in the period leading up to his employment, therefore, have no tendency to make a fact about his employment experience or performance while at Bullard or the termination of that employment more or less probable than it would be without the evidence nor are they of consequence in the determination of the action. See Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402. fathom how testimony or Further, the Court cannot evidence about Eric Pasch s relationship with his son, no matter how charged or even violent that relationship might be, could be relevant to the matter at hand. Finally, the Id. Court concludes that the testimony of Debbie Kenny, who held the same position as Vogel but whose employment with Bullard was terminated more than a year before he joined the company, is not relevant to the matter to be tried. She may have also been let go because she was not a good fit, but she has no personal knowledge of Vogel s employment or the termination of his employment. The Court is not persuaded 3 that the use of similar terminology with respect to the reason for her departure or even the fact that she may have had a similar experience with the management at Bullard makes the facts within her knowledge relevant to a determination of this action. Similarly, the testimony of Peter A. Kunk, who consulted with and coached Kenny and others at Bullard more than two years before Vogel s employment with the company is hardly relevant. experience nearly He or has the six-month no first-hand environment employment at at knowledge Bullard the of Vogel s during Vogel s company. As this evidence would be irrelevant to the inquiry at trial, it shall be excluded. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: (1) Limine That Defendant E.D. Bullard Company s Motions in to Exclude All Testimony and Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's Abilities and Experience Prior to Joining E.D. Bullard [DE 79], to Exclude All Testimony and Evidence About Eric Pasch's Relationship With His Son [DE 81], to Exclude All Testimony of Peter A. Kunk [DE 82], to Exclude All Testimony of Debbie Kenny [DE 83], and to Exclude All Evidence and Testimony About Plaintiff's Conversations with Glen Weingarth [DE 85] are GRANTED; 4 (2) that all evidence regarding Plaintiff s abilities and experience prior to his employment with E.D. Bullard Company is EXCLUDED from the trial of this matter; (3) that all testimony Pasch s relationship limited to, the with topics and his evidence son, about mentioned including, in the but Eric not deposition citations listed in the motion, are EXCLUDED from the trial of this matter; (4) that all testimony of Peter A. Kunk is EXCLUDED from the trial of this matter; (5) that all testimony of Debbie Kenny is EXCLUDED from the trial of this matter; and (6) that all evidence and testimony about Plaintiff s conversations with Glen Weingarth are trial of this matter. This the 16th day of October, 2013. 5 EXCLUDED from the
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
