Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc., No. 2:2005cv01125 - Document 133 (D. Nev. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 83 Motion to Bifurcate Trial; Granting in part and Denying in part 84 Motion in Limine to Exclude Witnesses Not Disclosed During Discovery; Denying 85 Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence that Rudolpho Lamas Found a ny Conduct Before the Third Note Harassing; Granting in part and Denying in part 86 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Monetary Damages; Granting 87 Motion to Compel; Denying 91 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding C harging Party Rudolpho Lamas' Work Performance at Prospect; Denying 92 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas' Propr and/or Subsequent Work Performace; Denying 93 Motion in Limine to E xclude Evidence andArguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition; Denying 94 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas Mental Health Care The rapy and Therapy Records Outside of the Information Regarding the Harassment at Issue in this Case.; Granting in part and Denying in part 95 Motion in Limine Request for Judicial Notice; and Granting 109 Defendant's Countermotion. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 12/6/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc. Doc. 133 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 *** 5 6 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 7 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 2:05-CV-1125-KD-GWF 8 ORDER 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES, INC., ) and DOES I-10, inclusive, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) INTRODUCTION Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Bifurcate the Trial into Two Phases (#83). Plaintiff has filed an Opposition (#100) and Defendant has filed a reply (#119) which have also been considered by the Court. Also before the Court is Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Witnesses Not Disclosed During Discovery (#84) along with Plaintiff’s Opposition (#103) and Defendant’ Reply (#110) which have all been considered by the Court. Also before the Court is Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence that Rudolpho Lamas Found Any Conduct Before the Third Note Harassing (#85). Plaintiff has filed an opposition (#105) and Defendant has filed a reply (#111). Also before the Court is Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Monetary Damages (#86). Plaintiff filed an opposition (#104) which has been considered by the Court. Also before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Therapist’s Notes and Motion in Limine to Include Testimony Regarding Therapists Meetings (#87). Plaintiff has filed an opposition (#102) and Defendant filed a reply (#113) which have also been considered by the Court. Plaintiff filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas’ Work Performance at Prospect (#91). Defendant filed an opposition (#116) and Plaintiff filed a reply (#125). Plaintiff also filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Dockets.Justia.com 1 Party Rudolpho Lamas’ Prior and/Or Subsequent Work Performance (#92). Defendant filed a 2 opposition (#120) and Plaintiff filed a reply (#126) which were also considered by the Court. 3 Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments 4 Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas’ Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposi5 tion (#93). Defendant has filed an opposition and Countermotion (## 107, 109), Plaintiff filed a 6 response and opposition (#117), and Defendant filed a reply in support of the Countermotion 7 (#128) which were considered by the Court. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 8 to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas’ Mental Health 9 Care Therapy and Therapy Records Outside of Information Regarding the Harassment at Issue in 10 This Case (#94) to which Defendant filed an Opposition (#115) which were considered by the 11 Court. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s in Limine Request for Judicial Notice (#95 and 95-1). 12 Defendant has filed an Opposition (#114) and Plaintiff filed a reply (#127) which were considered 13 by the Court. 14 RULINGS 15 Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Bifurcate Trial (#83) seeks to divide the trial into 16 liability and punitive damage phases. Plaintiff opposes, arguing repetition of evidence, duplica17 tion of efforts and lack of prejudice to Defendant. The same jury will be used to determine all 18 issues. Any additional evidence supporting liability for punitive damages can be presented 19 separately after the jury has made its determination on the primary claim. There is a strong 20 likelihood that a jury, attempting to determine liability, would be unduly influenced by the other 21 acts evidence supporting the claim for punitive damages. There will be no delay in trying the case 22 in two phases. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Bifurcate Trial (#83) is 23 GRANTED. 24 Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Witnesses Not Disclosed During Discovery 25 (#84) seeks to exclude testimony from Vicki Strobel, Forrest Alvarez, Angela Tullos and Clarence 26 Johnson. Plaintiff has not shown Defendant had notice of Clarence Johnson or Forrest Alvarez’s 27 knowledge of facts concerning this case. The late disclosure is unduly prejudicial and the 28 2 1 testimony is excluded. Strobel is not the person designated as the Rule 30 (b)(6) witness. 2 Claypool can provide the same testimony. Late notice is unduly burdensome on Strobel and 3 accordingly testimony of Strobel is excluded. Tullos’ late disclosure is harmless. Accordingly, 4 Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Witnesses Not Disclosed During Discovery (#84) is 5 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Testimony from Alvarez, Johnson and Strobel is 6 excluded. Tullos will be allowed to testify. 7 Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence that Rudolpho Lamas 8 Found Any Conduct Before the Third Note Harassing (#85) is DENIED. The totality of Munoz’ 9 conduct toward Lamas is at issue. 10 Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Monetary Damages (#86) is 11 DENIED in part. Plaintiff seeks only general and punitive damages, not front or back pay or 12 specials. The punitive damage claim, however, is problematic. Other Courts under similar 13 circumstances have precluded Plaintiff from suggesting an amount of compensatory or punitive 14 damages absent complying with FRCP 26. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion in Limine to 15 Exclude Evidence of Monetary Damages in GRANTED in part. Plaintiff may request general and 16 punitive damages, but may not suggest or request a specific amount. 17 Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Therapist’s Notes and Motion in Limine to 18 Include Testimony Regarding Therapist’s Meetings (#87) seeks to require production of evidence 19 of Llamas’ mental health issues which may have affected his work performance aside from the 20 alleged sexual harassments. Plaintiff opposes arguing that Defendant has failed to articulate why 21 it failed to move to compel discovery at an earlier time. However, Plaintiff has been on notice 22 that the records were in issue. The records may be probative on the issue of the cause of Llamas’ 23 distress and perceived harassment. There is no prejudice to Plaintiff in being required to produce 24 records it may already have or in issuance of a subpoena requiring Llamas’ mental health provider 25 to produce such records. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Therapist’s 26 Notes and Motion in Limine to Include Testimony Regarding Therapist’s Meetings (#87) is 27 GRANTED. 28 3 1 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging 2 Party Rudolpho Lamas’ Work Performance at Prospect (#91) is DENIED. Lamas has previously 3 testified he believed his work performance changed as a result of Munoz’s sexual harassment. 4 Plaintiff intends to put on evidence of his good character and work ethic, thereby opening the door 5 for all such evidence. The evidence is highly relevant to the issues in this case and not unduly and 6 unfairly prejudicial. Defendant claims Lamas’ performance changed before the alleged harass7 ment. Accordingly, EEOC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding 8 Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas’ Work Performance is DENIED. 9 EEOC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Party 10 Rudolpho Lamas’ Prior and/or Subsequent Work Performance (#92) raises essentially the same 11 issues as EEOC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging 12 Party Rudolpho Lamas’ work performance at Prospect (#91). For the reasons set forth above, the 13 Court finds that the subject evidence is relevant, probative and not unfairly prejudicial Accord14 ingly, EEOC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Party 15 Rudolpho Lamas’ Prior and/or Subsequent Work Performance is DENIED. 16 EEOC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Party 17 Rudolpho Lamas’ Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition (#93) asserts that any 18 evidence or testimony of Lamas’ personal matters that occurred outside of the workplace with 19 people other than the alleged harasser is completely immaterial to the issues at hand. Plaintiff’s 20 statement of the issue makes it appear that Defendant is attempting to introduce Lamas’ entire 21 personal sexual history. Defendant responds that it is only requesting admissibility of Lamas’ 22 prior statements at another place of employment and to be able to respond to Lamas’ assertion that 23 because of his strong Christian values, he found Munoz’s conduct harassing. Defendant further 24 responds that the evidence is relevant to the issue of the reasonableness of Defendant’s response to 25 the allegations of harassment and whether Lamas requested Defendant not to take action against 26 Munoz. Lamas has placed his mental state in issue and his mental state is relevant to the question 27 of whether he found Munoz’s conduct offensive. Defendant has filed a Countermotion (#109), 28 4 1 seeking permission to adduce evidence on that topic. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to 2 Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas’s Past “sexual” 3 Behavior or Alleged “Sexual” Predisposition is DENIED to the extent of Lamas’ comments to a 4 coworker, Lamas’ perception of sexual harassment, Lamas’ statement to Mitchell that he did not 5 want to file a complaint against Munoz, and Lamas’ interaction with his supervisor when he was 6 accused. Defendant’s Countermotion (#109) is GRANTED. 7 EEOC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Party 8 Rudolpho Lamas’ Mental Health Care Therapy and Therapy Records Outside of the Information 9 Regarding the Harassment at Issue in this Case (#94) also deals with mental health treatment 10 sought by Lamas unrelated to the special sexual harassment allegations asserted in this action. As 11 stated previously, Lamas attributes emotional distress to his employment with Defendant. 12 Plaintiff has been aware that these records were in issue and there is no prejudice in requiring 13 them to be produced. They may contain evidence that is relevant to the claim that Lamas’ 14 emotional stress was caused by Munoz. Accordingly, EEOC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude 15 Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Party’s Mental Health Care Therapy (#94) is 16 DENIED. 17 EEOC’s Motion in Limine Request for Judicial Notice (#95) seeks to have the Court take 18 judicial notice of the number of defendant’s employees, Defendant’s gross sales, certain statutes 19 and Nevada Employment Security Division Publications. The information on the number of 20 Defendant’s employees does not meet the requirements for judicial notice and is irrelevant to the 21 sexual harassment claim. Similarly, Defendant’s gross sales are irrelevant to the sexual harass22 ment claim. However, statutes may be judicially noticed and Nevada Employment Security 23 Division Publications are not reasonably subject to dispute and are relevant to the issues to be 24 tried. Accordingly EEOC’s Preliminary Request for Judicial Notice (#95) is GRANTED in part 25 and DENIED in part as stated. 26 27 28 5 1 2 CONCLUSION ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant’s Motion in Limine to 3 Bifurcate the Trial into Two Phases (#83) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Witnesses 5 Not Disclosed During Discovery (#84) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Testimony 6 from Alvarez, Johnson and Strobel is excluded. Tullos will be allowed to testify. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument 8 and Evidence that Rudolpho Lamas Found Any Conduct Before the Third Note Harassing (#85) is 9 DENIED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of 11 Monetary Damages (#86) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Plaintiff may request 12 general and punitive damages, but may not suggest or request a specific amount. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Therapist’s 14 Notes and Motion in Limine to Include Testimony Regarding Therapists Meetings (#87) is 15 GRANTED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and 17 Arguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas’ Work Performance at Prospect (#91) is 18 DENIED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and 20 Arguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas’ Prior and/or Subsequent Work Perfor21 mance (#92) is DENIED. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and 23 Arguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas’ Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual 24 Predisposition (#93) is DENIED to the extent of Lamas’ comments to a coworker, Lamas’ 25 perception of sexual harassment, Lamas’ statement to Mitchell that he did not want to file a 26 complaint against Munoz, and Lamas’ interaction with his supervisor when he was accused. 27 Defendant’s Countermotion (#109) is GRANTED. 28 6 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and 2 Arguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas’ Mental Health Care Therapy and Therapy 3 Records Outside of the Information Regarding the Harassment at Issue in this Case (#94) is 4 DENIED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Request for Judicial Notice 6 (#95) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 7 DATED: December 6, 2011 8 9 ____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
