Vaidyanathan v. Seagate US LLC et al, No. 0:2009cv01212 - Document 510 (D. Minn. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Employment Opportunities that are Not Substantially Equivalent (Doc. No. 458 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. Defendants may cross-examine P laintiff about his efforts to obtain employment, including what effect, if any, his current business has had on his efforts to seek employment. The Court notes that Plaintiff, in his deposition, denied that he has reduced his efforts in looking for s ubstantially equivalent employment. Moreover, the Court will permit the Defendants to cross-examine Plaintiff on certain positions that they assert have been available and whether these positions are substantially similar or substantially equivalent with respect to the job posting and job searching exhibits that were suggested at trial. While those exhibits will not be admissible at trial before the jury or allowed to be displayed to the jury for illustrative purposes, absent further ruling of t his Court, the Court will permit an examination of the Plaintiff, provided that the Defendants have a good faith basis to inquire on the issue of the reasonableness of Plaintiff's job seeking efforts for substantially similar or equivalent posit ions. This ruling is based on the Court's finding that there is no foundation for these exhibits at this time, and that these exhibits are otherwise inadmissible on Rule 403 grounds, even if the Court does not consider them to be hearsay as asse rted by the Plaintiff. The issue of whether the Court will permit any extrinsic evidence in the event that these exhibits are offered during, or at the conclusion of, the examination of the Plaintiff, is premature. (See Order for additional rulings, information and details.)(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/12/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A) (BJS)