Johnson v. Golden Valley Natural, LLC, No. 4:2019cv00105 - Document 45 (D. Idaho 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 31 is granted. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill.(aa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ALEXIS JOHNSON, Case No. 4:19-cv-00105-BLW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. GOLDEN VALLEY NATURAL, LLC, Defendant. BACKGROUND Trial in this matter is set for September 14, 2020. Johnson has claims for hostile work environment based upon sexual and racial harassment, disparate treatment based on sex and race ready for trial and constructive discharge. Plaintiff has filed a motion in limine seeking an advance ruling as to certain evidentiary matters. Dkt. 31. LEGAL STANDARD There is no express authority for motions in limine in either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nevertheless, these motions are well recognized in practice and by case law. See, e.g., Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 (2000). They key function of a motion in limine is to “exclude prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. ORDER - 1 United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 (1984). A ruling on a motion in limine is essentially a preliminary ruling, which may be reconsidered in the context of trial. Id. at 41. ANALYSIS Johnson seeks to exclude any mention of the following matters at trial: (1) witness Pamela Cortez’s lawsuit against Golden Valley, except to say that it is ongoing; (2) Defendant’s First Affirmative Defense alleging that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3) Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defenses which allege that Johnson’s claims are barred or limited by assumption of risk, contributory negligence, estoppel, laches, release, waiver, acquiescence, unclean hands, and ratification. Johnson also seeks a pretrial ruling that the deposition testimony of the parties and witnesses and defendant’s signed responses to interrogatories are admissible at trial. The deadline for filing a response has passed and Golden Valley has not objected to this motion. Therefore, the Court will grant the motion. IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. 31) is GRANTED. DATED: September 5, 2020 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge ORDER - 2
]]>
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.
