Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00155/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00155-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARATON ADAMS, et al., ) 

 ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO 08-0155-KD-N 

 ) 

AUSTAL, USA, L.LC., ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Order on 

Motion in Limine (Doc. 491).1

 Plaintiffs move the Court to alter or amend the order entered on 

September 20, 2011, and allege that the decision is “unfathomable”, “improper”, “wrong”, 

“ignore[s] the fact[s]” and is “in violation of Eleventh Circuit precedent”. 

The disputed prior order on a motion in limine denied Defendant’s “request to ‘preclude 

plaintiffs from offering any testimony from any of the 18 plaintiffs whose claims are not being 

tried’" but explained that in 

Plaintiffs' case in chief, the court will not allow testimony from any plaintiffs (not 

set for trial) regarding alleged racially discriminatory acts at Austal unless there 

has been evidence submitted at trial that one of the trial plaintiffs was aware of 

the discriminatory act during his employment at Austal AND the Defendant has 

challenged that the act occurred. 

(Doc. 481). 

 Upon consideration, the motion (Doc. 491) is DENIED to the extent that the ruling 

stands as a preliminary ruling. The Court excluded the “me too” evidence in order to prevent 

mini-trials on incidents not related to the plaintiffs and to prevent cumulative evidence. There are 

 1

 Austal’s motion to Strike is DENIED. (Doc. 495). 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 496 Filed 09/25/11 Page 1 of 2
five plaintiffs which are expected to testify to numerous incidents, which if consistent with their 

deposition testimony, will cover more than a majority of the incidents that allegedly occurred 

throughout a very large facility over a period of two to four years. Moreover, as previously 

stated, if the defendant infers that the incidents did not occur, plaintiffs will be allowed to present 

additional evidence in support of their contention. 

 To the extent that plaintiffs propose to offer testimony of racial slurs and other racial 

activity by supervisors and members of management who participated in promotion and pay 

decisions specifically related to the plaintiffs’ remaining pay and promotion claims, the court 

will reconsider its ruling upon a proffer of this evidence at the close of trial on Monday, 

September 26, 2011. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 25th day of September 2011.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 496 Filed 09/25/11 Page 2 of 2