Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00844/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00844-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gary S. Duarte, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Catalina Foothills School District No. 16, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-00844-TUC-JAS

ORDER 

 On 11/3/14, the Court held a pretrial conference with the parties to discuss 

pending matters related to the jury trial set for 11/4/14. At the pretrial conference, the 

parties expressed their respective positions pertaining to the admissibility of Defendant’s 

Exhibit 54 which is a “no cause” determination from the Arizona Civil Rights Division 

(“ACRD”). The determination is simply a fill-in-the-blank form which has an “X” 

marked next to a sentence that summarily states that based on the ACRD’s investigation, 

“the information is not sufficient to establish violations of the statute(s).” The Ninth 

Circuit has held that such “no cause” determinations are not per se admissible, but require 

the trial court to weigh its probative value against Rule 403 considerations. See Beachy 

v. Boise Cascade Corp., 191 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 1999). As the fill-in-the-blank 

form does not discuss the extent of any investigation by the ACRD and does not give any 

analysis whatsoever, the probative value is minimal at best. In light of the low probative 

value of the determination and upon consideration of the Rule 403 factors, the Court 

finds that the minimal relevance of the ACRD’s decision is outweighed by Rule 403 

factors such that it must be excluded at trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403 (“The court may 

Case 4:12-cv-00844-JAS Document 84 Filed 11/03/14 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger 

of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the 

jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”). 

 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2014. 

Honorable James A. Soto 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:12-cv-00844-JAS Document 84 Filed 11/03/14 Page 2 of 2