Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02571/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02571-4/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The Final Pretrial Order required that

Any evidentiary dispute capable of being

resolved in limine shall be set forth in an in

limine motion which shall be filed no later

than 4:30 p.m. on May 17, 2005. An opposition

or a non-opposition statement to any filed in

limine motion shall be filed no later than

4:30 p.m. on May 24, 2005. Failure to state a

basis for admissibility or non-admissibility

of disputed evidence constitutes a waiver or

abandonment of that basis. 

(Final Pretrial Order filed April 21, 2005, at 2.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESTER E. PATRICK, )

) CIV NO. S-03-2571 GEB JFM PS

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) RULING ON IN LIMINE MOTIONS

)

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, ) 

Secretary of Department of )

Veteran Affairs, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On May 17, 2005, Defendant filed a motion in limine.1

Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on May 24, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-02571-GEB -JFM Document 67 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2 All references to Rules are to the Federal Rules of

Evidence.

2

Defendant’s first in limine motion seeks to prevent

Plaintiff from referencing an Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”) Administrative Judge’s (“AJ”) finding of

retaliation concerning a position for which Plaintiff applied

(“Second Case”) some time after he did not get the position about

which he sues in the instant case. Defendant argues that the AJ’s

retaliation finding made in the Second Case involves entirely

different management officials, and should be excluded under Rule

403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence because its probative value is

substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudicial effect.2

Plaintiff rejoins that the management officials involved

with this federal lawsuit also testified in the second case, and

therefore, the AJ’s retaliation finding in the second case may be

admissible under Rule 404(b). But before 

"other act" evidence is admissible under Rule

404(b) . . . the following test [has to be]

satisfied: (1) there must be sufficient proof

for the jury to find committed the other act;

(2) the other act must not be too remote in

time; (3) the other act must be introduced to

prove a material issue in the case; and (4)

the other act must, in some cases, be similar

to the offense charged. Even if all four

conditions are met, the evidence may still be

excluded if under Rule 403, the probative value

of the evidence is substantially outweighed by

the danger of unfair prejudice. 

Duran v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000)

(internal citations omitted).

Case 2:03-cv-02571-GEB -JFM Document 67 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Here, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient proof that

any management official said or did anything that underlies the

AJ’s retaliation finding in the second case. Therefore,

Defendant’s motion on this issue is granted.

The record on Defendant’s second and third motions is

insufficient for in limine rulings, therefore, those motions are

denied. 

Defendant’s fourth motion seeks to prevent testimony

about what he characterizes as a phantom internet job announcement. 

Defendant asserts that “Plaintiff has made much of this ‘third

announcement’; but it is nothing but a red herring . . . . By

Plaintiff’s own account, the third version of the announcement did

not appear until long after the selection; it is undisputed that it

was not actually used on the selection process.” (Mot. at 7-8.)

Plaintiff’s counter-argument fails to show that the

probative value of the “third announcement” evidence substantially

outweighs Rule 403 considerations. Therefore, the motion is

granted.

The record on Defendant’s remaining motions is

insufficient for in limine rulings, therefore those motions are

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02571-GEB -JFM Document 67 Filed 05/27/05 Page 3 of 3