McDonald v. Glades Electric Co-Op, No. 2:2008cv00179 - Document 135 (M.D. Fla. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 94 Motion in limine as specified in the Opinion and Order; granting in part and denying in part 100 Motion in limine; granting in part and denying in part 102 Motion in limine; denying 130 Motion to strike. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/22/2011. (RKR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION SAMMIE MCDONALD, JR., Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:08-cv-179-FtM-29SPC GLADES ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. Defendant. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendant s Motion in Limine (Doc. #94) filed on April 25, 2011. (Doc. #118) was filed on May 18, 2011. Plaintiff s Opposition Also before the Court are the following additional motions in limine: Plaintiff s Motion in Limine No. 1 (Doc. #100), to which a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. #103) was filed; Plaintiff s Motion in Limine No. 2 (Doc. #102), to which a Memorandum Plaintiff s Motion in in Opposition Limine No. (Doc. #109) was 3 (Doc. #130), filed; to and which a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. #131) was filed. Both sides seek to preclude the admission of certain evidence at the trial of this case. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984)(in a broad sense, a motion in limine is any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered. ). In light of the nature of pre-trial in limine motions, the rulings below shall govern the trial, but any party may seek reconsideration at trial in light of the evidence actually presented and shall make contemporaneous objections when evidence is elicited. A. Defendant s Motion in Limine (Doc. #94): 1. The Court finds that the evidence summarized in the four bullet points on pages 8-9 is irrelevant to any issue in this case, and that any possible relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and considerations of undue delay and waste of time. The motion in limine is granted as to these items. 2. The Court finds that the evidence relating to allegations against Jack Coxe summarized on pages 11-12 is irrelevant to any issue in this substantially case, and outweighed by that the any danger possible of relevance unfair is prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and considerations of undue delay and waste of time. The motion in limine is granted as to these items. 3. The Court finds that the evidence relating to comparators summarized on pages 12-17 is admissible in part. Plaintiff may introduce evidence as to Altman s conduct related to the events of this case, regardless of whether he is a comparator. The Court also finds that the evidence related to the 2009 traffic accident, and the October, 2010 accident is relevant and not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the -2- issues, misleading the jury, and considerations of undue delay and waste of time. The motion is denied as to this evidence. The Court does find that evidence relating to the incidents involving Sean Reark, the Southern Gardens Citrus Processing facility and the Lake Josephine substation is irrelevant to any issue in this case, and that any possible relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and considerations of undue delay and waste of time. The motion in limine is granted as to these items. 4. litigate The Court finds that neither party will be allowed to rethe appropriateness of the discipline received by plaintiff in the 1990s, but that the fact of the discipline will be admissible. The appropriateness of the prior discipline is irrelevant to any issue in this case, and any possible relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and considerations of undue delay and waste of time. The motion in limine is granted to that extent. 5. Evidence of the offer of settlement in approximately 1995 is irrelevant to any issue in this case, and any possible relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and considerations of undue delay and waste of time. Such evidence is also inadmissible -3- under Fed. R. Evid. 408. The motion in limine is granted as to this offer of settlement. B. Plaintiff s Motion in Limine No. 1 (Doc. #100) The January 28, 2001 Affidavit of Tommy Todd is not itself being offered by defendant. the Affidavit is granted. Therefore, the motion in limine as to As to Mr. Todd s trial testimony, some of the subject matters are being precluded, and therefore the motion in limine is moot as to those matters. As to other testimony, the Court is unable to rule in an in limine fashion, and the parties should be prepared to state any objection to specific testimony at trial. The motion is therefore granted in part and denied in part. C. Plaintiff s Motion in Limine No. 2 (Doc. #102) 1. The Court finds that defendant is not collaterally estopped by the 2008 arbitration opinion from presenting evidence and testimony as to the reasons for its termination of plaintiff. This portion of the motion is denied. 2. The Court doubts that the 1996 arbitration opinion is admissible. will be Assuming without deciding that it is, neither party allowed determination. D. to challenge the appropriateness of its The motion is granted to that extent. Plaintiff s Motion in Limine No. 3 (Doc. #130) As with a prior motion, the Court is unable to rule in an in limine fashion as to this evidence, and the parties should be -4- prepared to state any objection to specific testimony at trial. The motion is therefore denied. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: All Motion in Limine is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this July, 2011. Copies: Counsel of record -5- 22nd day of
]]>
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.
