Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01977/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01977-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

04cv1977

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE COPLEY PRESS, INC. d/b/a

UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04cv1977-L(WMc)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS IN LIMINE, AND

GRANTING AND PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

On October 10, 2006, the parties’ motions in limine came on for a hearing on the Court’s

morning calendar. Peter F. Laura, Esq. and Victor Miramontes, Esq. appeared on behalf of

Plaintiff United States Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Tara Wilcox, Esq. and John

D. Collins, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant The Copley Press, Inc. (“Copley”). Upon

review of the parties’ filings in support of and in opposition to the motions, oral argument, the

reasons stated at the hearing, and as further stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as

follows:

1. EEOC’s motion in limine no. 1 to exclude the testimony and report of Copley’s expert

Owen Smith is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. Mr. Smith’s opinions and

testimony shall be limited to pressroom operations and equipment, as well as the essential

functions of the Paperhandler and Pressroom Apprentice positions, including what

Case 3:04-cv-01977-WMC Document 137 Filed 10/12/06 Page 1 of 5
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 04cv1977

communication is included in each essential function. In addition, Mr. Smith is not precluded

from answering questions whether a person with a hypothetical impairment can perform those

essential functions, and whether hypothetical accommodations are appropriate in the pressroom

environment. Mr. Smith’s opinions and testimony about Gerald Mitchell's personality, hearing

impairment, accommodations for his impairment, and safety issues are excluded. 

2. EEOC’s motion in limine no. 2 to exclude evidence and argument regarding Copley’s

affirmative defenses of waiver, unclean hands, third party negligence and equitable estoppel is

DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. While argument pertaining to these defenses

is excluded, the evidence on which the defenses are based, i.e., Mr. Mitchell’s alleged

unauthorized use of machinery and alleged failure to participate in the interactive process, is

relevant to other issues and is therefore not excluded.

3. EEOC’s motion in limine no. 3 to exclude evidence regarding Mr. Mitchell’s alleged

unauthorized use of machinery in the Packaging Department is DENIED. If Copley’s relevant

decision makers became aware of Mr. Mitchell’s alleged misconduct after they denied his

applications, the evidence is relevant as indicated in the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

Instruction 12.5C. EEOC’s argument that Copley did not terminate Mr. Mitchell after

discovering the alleged misconduct is inapposite, since the relevant inquiry is whether Copley

would have made the same decision regarding Mr. Mitchell’s applications. See 9th Cir. Model

Civ. Jury Instructions § 12.5C. If the relevant decision makers knew of the alleged unauthorized

conduct before denying the application, then the evidence is relevant to the issue whether Mr.

Mitchell is a “qualified individual” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 12111 and 12112 and to rebut

Copley’s assertion that had the decision makers known of the alleged misconduct, they would

have denied Mr. Mitchell’s applications on that ground. 

4. EEOC’s motion in limine no. 4 to exclude evidence regarding Mr. Mitchell’s speeding

ticket in 2004 and a traffic infraction in college is GRANTED.

5. EEOC’s motion in limine no. 5 to exclude evidence that Mr. Mitchell no longer wears

hearing aids is DENIED.

/ / / / /

Case 3:04-cv-01977-WMC Document 137 Filed 10/12/06 Page 2 of 5
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 04cv1977

6. EEOC’s motion in limine no. 6 to amend the Pretrial Order to add James Krakowiak

and Gilbert Gomez to the witness list is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. 

EEOC may call these witnesses only to rebut testimony that a deaf person cannot safely and

effectively perform in a newspaper pressroom, and that Mr. Smith had visited numerous

pressrooms and never seen a deaf person working there. In rebuttal, the witnesses may testify

that other pressrooms employ hearing impaired employees.

7. Copley’s motion in limine no. 1 to exclude the testimony and report of EEOC’s safety

expert Earnest F. Harper is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. Mr. Harper is

not precluded from rendering opinions pertaining to the safety hazards of the pressroom

environment as they relate to a hearing impaired individual. In addition, he is not precluded

from answering questions whether a person with a hypothetical hearing impairment can safely

perform in the pressroom and whether hypothetical accommodations would be safe in the

pressroom environment. Mr. Harper is not precluded from opining about hearing impaired

accommodations relevant to pressroom safety concerns. However, any testimony about hearing

disability accommodations beyond safety concerns shall be admitted subject to voir dire and

objections regarding qualifications. At the hearing, the parties argued the relevancy of opinions

regarding accommodations which would render the pressroom environment safer, when the

same accommodations would make the environment safer for all employees regardless of

hearing impairment, in light of Mr. Harper’s opinion that Mr. Mitchell could safely perform in

the pressroom without any accommodation. Copley denied Mr. Mitchell’s applications for the

based on the belief he could not safely or effectively perform the essential functions of either

position due to his hearing impairment and alleged inability to communicate in the pressroom as

required. Mr. Harper’s opinions regarding safety improvements are relevant only to the extent

they address safety concerns arising from hearing impairment. Any other opinions regarding

safety improvements are excluded.

8. Copley’s motion in limine no. 2 to preclude EEOC from referring as “promotions” to

the pressroom positions for which Mr. Mitchell applied is DENIED.

/ / / / /

Case 3:04-cv-01977-WMC Document 137 Filed 10/12/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4 04cv1977

9. Copley’s motion in limine no. 3 to exclude testimony regarding Jimmie Crouch’s

hearing impairment and co-workers’ lack of English fluency is DENIED IN PART AND

GRANTED IN PART. Mr. Crouch's testimony regarding the percentage of his hearing loss is

excluded. However, testimony about his hearing loss in more general terms, for example, that he

is hearing impaired, what or how much he can hear (without stating a percentage), the

circumstances affecting his hearing, such as the effect of the pressroom noise on his ability to

hear, how his hearing loss affects his communication abilities, and how he communicates and

functions despite his inability to hear well in the pressroom is not excluded. In addition, Mr.

Crouch’s testimony about his own experience in communicating with non-English speaking

employees in the pressroom and about his observations of other employees' communication with

the non-English speakers is not excluded. 

10. Copley’s motion in limine no. 4 to exclude Mr. Crouch’s testimony that Mr. Mitchell

could adequately communicate in the pressroom and could perform as a Paperhandler or a

Pressroom Apprentice without any assistance is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN

PART. Mr. Crouch's testimony about his observations of and experience with Mr. Mitchell's

communication methods and skills, and about the communication methods in Copley’s

pressroom is not excluded. His opinion whether Mr. Mitchell could adequately and without

accommodation perform in the jobs he applied for is excluded. 

11. Copley’s motion in limine no. 5 to exclude testimony regarding hearing impaired

pressroom employees at non-Copley facilities is DENIED.

12. Copley’s motion in limine no. 6 to bifurcate the trial on the amount of punitive

damages and penalties is GRANTED.

13. To the extent evidence is not excluded pursuant the instant order, its admissibility is

subject to evidentiary objections at trial.

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

Case 3:04-cv-01977-WMC Document 137 Filed 10/12/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5 04cv1977

14. The counsel shall immediately inform their respective clients and witnesses of the

terms and legal effect of this order, and that they are bound thereby.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 12, 2006

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM McCURINE, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:04-cv-01977-WMC Document 137 Filed 10/12/06 Page 5 of 5