Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_04-cv-00377/USCOURTS-alsd-2_04-cv-00377-2/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JEFFREY SCOTT JONES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil Case No.: 04-377-BH-B

)

LINDEN CITY BOARD OF )

EDUCATION, and WALTER DAVIS, )

Individually and in his official capacity as )

Superintendent of Education of )

Linden City Schools, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matteris before the Court onthe parties’ Motions (Docs. 77 & 78) inLimine and Defendants’

Response (Doc. 80) to Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 78) in Limine. Upon review of the parties’ respective

motions the Court rules as follows: 

As to Defendants’ Motion in Limine seeking the Court to exclude certain evidence and/or

testimony, the Court finds that it is due to be DENIED in Part and the remainder of the issues are

to be determinedat trialwhensuchdeterminationbecomes necessary. Defendants seek to exclude

evidence of Timothy Thurman’s actions or incidents while he was employed by the Perry County Board

of Education prior to serving as principal a Linden High School, as well as any incidents, actions or

correspondence pertaining to any instances that reflect on his performance after he was hired at Linden

Case 2:04-cv-00377-BH-B Document 81 Filed 10/06/05 Page 1 of 3
High School. The Court will withhold ruling on the proprietyof this evidence until the context and nature

of suchevidence becomes more clear at trial. For the same reason, the Court also withholds its ruling as

to Defendants plea to exclude the handwritten notes (Pl.’s Proposed Ex. List, #8) of Scott Jones.

However, the Court does find that exclusion of Rebecca Vick’stestimony that she believed a majority of

the interview committee felt it was better to have a black man as principal would be improper. In Ms.

Vick’s deposition, she testified that such a feeling was merely her opinion. The Court feels that this type

of testimony is probative as she was a member of one of the selection committees and her feelings while

she was making a decision as to who was the best candidate certainly is relevant in this matter.

Furthermore, such testimony would not be overly prejudicial as Defendants will have the opportunity to

cross-examine her to as to the basis and rationality of such a feeling. Therefore, Defendants’ attempt to

exclude the testimony of Rebecca Vick is hereby DENIED.

Plaintiff also seeks to exclude particular evidence and testimony, as outlined in its own Motion in

Limine. Plaintiff’s Motion is due to be GRANTED in Part and the remainder of the issues are to

be determined at trial when such determination becomes necessary. As we determined with

Defendants’ motion, the Court will withhold ruling on much of the material sought to be excluded by

Plaintiff. However, the Court does find that Plaintiff’s request to exclude all evidence and testimony that

maypertaintoPlaintiff’s custodymatters withhis childrenis hereby GRANTED. As outlined in Plaintiff’s

Motion, this type ofevidence is currently irrelevant to the issue being determined pursuant to Fed.R.Evid.

401 and 402. However, if, at some point during the trial, Defendantsfeelthatsuchevidence is necessary

to support their burdenor rebut a contentionmade byPlaintiff or one ofhis witnesses, they may motionthe

Court for its permission to present such evidence. The Court does caution, though, that it will only allow

such evidence as is absolutely necessary and will take great pains to ensure that the contents and nature

Case 2:04-cv-00377-BH-B Document 81 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 3
of that testimony are not presented in a manner that is more prejudicial than probative. 

So ORDERED, this 6th day of October, 2005.

s/ W. B. Hand

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00377-BH-B Document 81 Filed 10/06/05 Page 3 of 3