Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02189/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02189-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

DIANA PAYNE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-2189

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH BY AND THROUGH THE

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANT

O R D E R

On this 10th day of August 2006, there comes on for

consideration Defendant’s Motion in Limine, Brief in Support,

First Amendment to its Motion in Limine (Docs. 56-57, 59),

Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 63) and Defendant’s Reply (Doc.

64). Defendant seeks to exclude: (1) the testimony of Peter

Ben Ezra; (2) evidence attempting to impeach the ad hoc

committee’s finding of plagiarism; (3) evidence of “pretext”

that is not substantially similar to Plaintiff’s offense and

(4) the 1999 faculty survey. For the following reasons,

Defendant’s Motion and Amended Motion (Docs. 56 & 59) are

DENIED.

Testimony of Peter Ben Ezra

Defendants move to exclude the expert testimony of Peter

Ben Ezra. Plaintiff retained Mr. Ezra to testify regarding

the material that the Ad Hoc Committee found Plaintiff

plagiarized in the context of professional accounting

Case 2:04-cv-02189-RTD Document 65 Filed 08/10/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

practices and standards. Defendant contends that whether a

document is plagiarized is an issue that a jury can decide

without expert testimony. 

Defendants argue that Ezra is not qualified to testify as

an expert and that the testimony is irrelevant and unreliable.

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized

knowledge will assist the trier of fact to

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in

issue, a witness qualified as an expert by

knowledge, skill, experience, training, or

education may testify thereto in the form of an

opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based

upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is

the product of reliable principles and methods, and

(3) the witness has applied the principles and

methods reliably to the facts of the case.

The commentary to Rule 702 indicates that the rejection of

expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule and

that the more appropriate means of attacking shaky evidence is

vigorous cross-examination and presentation of contrary

evidence.

Ezra has an extensive background in accounting and

scholarly work, therefore, the Court finds that his testimony

may assist the jury in understanding the context in which the

plagiarism allegations and subsequent finding arose. Further,

Defendant will be provided an opportunity to cross-examine Mr.

Ezra and to present its own contrary evidence. Accordingly,

the Court finds that Defendant’s objections go to the weight

Case 2:04-cv-02189-RTD Document 65 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

and credibility that the jury should give Mr. Ezra’s

testimony. Therefore, Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude

Mr. Ezra’s testimony is DENIED.

Evidence Impeaching the Plagiarism Finding

Defendant seeks to prevent Plaintiff from offering

evidence attempting to show that the Ad Hoc Committee’s

finding of plagiarism was incorrect. Defendant contends such

evidence should be excluded as Plaintiff is “bound” by the Ad

Hoc Committee’s finding and that the dismissal of Plaintiff’s

due process claims make such evidence irrelevant. Plaintiff

responds that such evidence is relevant to show that

Defendant’s reason for terminating Plaintiff was a pretext for

gender discrimination and retaliation for her protected

activity.

Defendant’ Motion does not identify any specific witness

or testimony it believes should be excluded. As such, the

Court is unable to determine whether any such testimony is

relevant and proper. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is

DENIED, however, Defendant may make any objections at trial at

the appropriate time. 

Evidence of “Pretext”

Defendant asks the Court to prohibit Plaintiff from

offering any evidence of alleged plagiarism by other UAFS

employees as none were similarly situated to Plaintiff in all

Case 2:04-cv-02189-RTD Document 65 Filed 08/10/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

relevant respects. Again Defendant fails to identify any

specific evidence or testimony, therefore, precluding the

Court from assessing the admissibility of such evidence.

Accordingly, the motion in limine is DENIED, and the Court

advises Defendant to raise any objection it may have at the

time Plaintiff attempts to offer such evidence.

1999 Faculty Survey

Plaintiff indicated that she may attempt to use the 1999

Faculty survey as rebuttal evidence, however, Plaintiff’s

counsel will approach the Court prior to mentioning or

offering the survey as evidence. Accordingly, Defendant’s

Motion is DENIED, however, it may renew the motion if

Plaintiff attempts to discuss or introduce the survey during

trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Robert T. Dawson

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02189-RTD Document 65 Filed 08/10/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>