David et al v. Signal International LLC et al, No. 2:2008cv01220 - Document 2126 (E.D. La. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER granting 2107 Motion to Exclude Materials Designated by Defendants for Use in Opening Statements and granting in part and denying in part 2080 Motion in Support of Objections to Dewan Video in Opening, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/10/2015. (tsf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
David et al v. Signal International LLC et al Doc. 2126 U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A KU RIAN D AVID , e t al. Plain tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N o . 0 8 -12 2 0 SIGN AL IN TERN ATION AL, LLC, e t al., D e fe n d an ts SECTION “E” EQU AL EMPLOYMEN T OPPORTU N ITY COMMISSION , Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N o . 12 -557 SIGN AL IN TERN ATION AL, LLC, e t al., D e fe n d an ts SECTION "E" LAKSH MAN AN PON N AYAN ACH ARI, e t al., Plain tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N o . 13 -6 2 18 ( c/ w 13 -6 2 19 , 13 -6 2 2 0 , 13 -6 2 2 1, 14 -73 2 , 14 18 18 ) SIGN AL IN TERN ATION AL, LLC, e t al., D e fe n d an ts SECTION "E" Ap p lie s To : D a v id v . Sig n a l ( N o . 0 8 -12 2 0 ) 1 Dockets.Justia.com ORD ER The parties have subm itted objections to deposition testim ony, exhibits, and dem onstrative exhibits intended to be used in opening statem ent, and responses to those objections.1 The Court's rulings are below. I. D e p o s itio n Te s tim o n y A. Burnett Objections Burnett moves to prohibit Plaintiffs from using part of a video deposition of Sachin Dewan concerning use of I-140 s for Defendant Indo-Am erisoft—a com pany owned by Dr. Kurella Rao—both during opening statem ent and at any point during trial.2 The designated portion concerns Indo-Am erisoft applicants who are not plaintiffs in this case. Allowing the jury to hear this testim ony would be confusing, because the testim ony is taken out of context and was not elicited with respect to the trial plaintiffs. The testim ony in this setting is overly prejudicial to Burnett. For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRAN TED IN PART.3 Plaintiff m ay not use the deposition designations during opening statem ent. The Court D EFERS a ruling on further use of Mr. Dewan's deposition testim ony during trial. B. Signal Objections Signal objects to Plantiffs' use of deposition testim ony from Thom as Rigolo both during opening statem ent and at any point during trial. Mr. Rigolo was Signal's Senior Vice President and General Manager of Texas Operations from 20 0 4 to 20 0 7. Plaintiffs 1 See R. Docs. 20 78, 20 79, 20 80 , 210 6, 210 7, 210 8, 210 9, 2110 . Two objections were subm itted as m otions. See R. Doc. 20 80 , 210 7. 2 See R. Doc. 20 80 . 3 Id. 2 have designated for use during opening statem ent page 246, line 1 – page 271, line 1 of Mr. Rigolo's deposition.4 Mr. Rigolo was a corporate officer of Signal who had som e involvem ent with the H2B program . Under Federal Rule of Evidence 70 1, the opinion expressed in the designated testim ony is adm issible and is not so prejudicial as to warrant exclusion. If Signal wishes the inclusion of lines 16 – 19 on page 245, it shall notify Plaintiffs im m ediately, and Plaintiffs will also include this testim ony in their opening statem ent. For the foregoing reasons, the objection is OVERRRU LED IN PART. Plaintiffs m ay use the designated portions of Mr. Rigolo's testim ony during opening statem ent, subject to Signal's request to include lines 16 – 19 of page 245. The Court D EFERS a ruling on further use of Mr. Rigolo's deposition testim ony during trial. C. Plaintiffs' Objections Plaintiffs m ove to prohibit Signal from showing during opening statem ent certain testim ony from the video deposition of Saket Soni, the Executive Director of the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial J ustice.5 Signal has designated page 286, lines 8 – 18 for opening statem ent. Plaintiffs point out this designation is not true deposition testim ony at all; rather, it is an audio clip from a taped speech purportedly given by Mr. Soni that was played for him at his deposition. The speech was given by Mr. Soni on a date unknown to the Court to an audience unknown to the Court under circum stances unknown to the Court. The speech is not sworn testim ony, subject to cross- exam ination, on a topic relevant to this case. It is instead a brazen attem pt to circum vent the rules of evidence and this Court's prior ruling that the political views of 4 See R. Doc. 2110 . R. Doc. 210 7. This Motion also objects to Burnett's use of a certain dem onstrative exhibit. That objection is discussed in subsection III below. 5 3 any party to this case, their counsel, or other witnesses are entirely irrelevant.6 If either Mr. Soni or counsel for Signal believes this trial provides an opportunity to expound upon an individual or an organization's political beliefs and causes, they are m istaken.7 For the reasons previously stated, this portion of the Motion is GRAN TED .8 Signal m ay not play the designated portion of Mr. Soni's video deposition at any point during trial. II. Exh ibits The parties did not object to exhibits that Signal and Burnett will use during opening statem ent. Dewan does not intend to use any exhibits during opening statem ent. The parties have, however, objected to certain exhibits that Plaintiffs will use during opening statem ent. Those objections are addressed below. A. Exhibits 1893 and 1984 Burnett filed a Motion in Lim ine with respect to these exhibits, which are emails written by Burnett in late 20 0 6 to other individuals involved in certain aspects of this case.9 Burnett argues the em ails are irrelevant because they concern individual workers who are not plaintiffs in this case and are overly prejudicial due to som e of the language used by Burnett. Burnett also argues the em ails will confuse the jury and waste the Court's tim e. The Court finds these em ails to be relevant and not overly prejudicial. The Motion is D EN IED , and these exhibits m ay be used by Plaintiffs during opening statem ent. 6 R. Doc. 20 74. That Mr. Soni is not an attorney in this case is imm aterial. To the extent necessary, the Court hereby clarifies its Order to exclude political views of counsel, parties, or witnesses and to exclude testim ony regarding related cases involving Indian workers by any witness. 7 Furtherm ore, Mr. Soni's state of m ind is not relevant to any determination that will be m ade by the jury. 8 R. Doc. 210 7. 9 R. Doc. 20 0 6. 4 B. Exhibit 190 3 Signal objects to the use of this exhibit both during opening statem ent and at trial.10 The exhibit is an em ail from Mr. Pol to J ohn Sanders of Signal. Mr. Pol testified at his deposition that he sent this em ail to Mr. Sanders and that they discussed the em ail after it was sent. Signal argues that Mr. Sanders will testify that he did not, or does not recall, reading the em ail until late 20 0 8. Plaintiffs' counsel has represented that he will not reference Mr. Sanders' testim ony about when he saw or read this em ail during opening, but rather will refer only to Mr. Pol's testim ony with respect to the em ail. Signal's objection is OVERRU LED IN PART, and Plaintiffs m ay use Exhibit 190 3 during opening statem ent. The Court D EFERS on whether this exhibit m ay be used during trial. C. Exhibit 1944 Signal objects to the use of this exhibit during opening statem ent. This exhibit is a letter from Pat Killeen of Signal to the Mississippi Departm ent of Environm ental Quality. Signal objects to this exhibit as being overly prejudicial and because of concern that counsel for Plaintiffs will m isrepresent the environm ental conditions at the m an cam p versus Signal's headquarters and use the docum ent to m ake im proper argum ent that Signal m ade m isrepresentations. Counsel for Plaintiffs represented to the Court that he is m indful of the purpose of opening statem ent and will conduct his opening statem ent accordingly. Further, counsel represented he will accurately represent the environm ental conditions at the m an cam p site and the site of Signal's corporate headquarters. Signal's objection is OVERRU LED , and Exhibit 1944 m ay be used by Plaintiffs during opening statem ent. 10 See R. Doc. 20 81. 5 D. Exhibits 1941 and 1951 Signal objects to the use of these exhibits during opening statem ent. The exhibits are em ails Plaintiffs contend show a culture of intolerance and discrim ination at Signal. Exhibit 1941 is an em ail sent between Signal m anagem ent, in particular Tracey Binion who works in hum an resources. Exhibit 1951 is an em ail sent by the Signal CEO's secretary to a person who has not been identified to the Court. Signal's objections are OVERRU LED IN PART. Exhibit 1941 m ay be used during Plaintiffs' opening statem ent, but Exhibit 1951 m ay not. III. D e m o n s trative Exh ibits Plaintiffs presented the Court with a copy of proposed dem onstrative exhibits to be used during opening statem ent. The parties raised several objections but have now resolved all but two. With respect to those objections, the Court rules as follows: (1) Plaintiffs m ay use Table 2 and Table 3 in their opening statem ent; (2) Plaintiffs m ay not use the slide which purports to define the elem ents of a forced labor violation. Burnett is sim ilarly precluded from presenting open argum ent on the law of forced labor. 11 N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 10 th d ay o f Jan u ary, 2 0 15. _____________ _______ __________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT JU D GE 11 R. Doc. 210 7 is therefore granted in its entirety as to Burnett. 6
]]>
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.
