Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01145/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01145-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sidney Ryan, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:14-cv-01145 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

Mesa Unified School District and ) [Re: Motion at Docket 79]

Joseph Goodman, in his individual )

capacity, )

)

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 79 plaintiffs Sidney Ryan, Jodi Ryan, and Jeffrey Hills (“Plaintiffs”),

move in limine for an order excluding certain evidence at trial. Defendant Joseph

Goodman (“Goodman”) opposes the motion at docket 82. Plaintiffs reply at docket 83.

Oral argument was not requested and would not assist the court. 

II. BACKGROUND

The court has described the background giving rise to this litigation in detail in

the order at docket 96. It need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say for purposes of

the present motion that Plaintiffs

1

 contend that Goodman violated their First

Amendment rights in dismissing them from their high school softball team. They now

seek an order precluding the following evidence: (1) Christopher P. Thomas’ report;

(2) B.H.’s social media postings made before or after the 2014 season; (3) various

harassment or bullying reports filed with Mesa Public Schools; and (4) the handwritten

notes of Athletic Director Steve Harris. 

1K.R. and B.H. are minors whose interests are represented in this case by plaintiffs Jodi

Ryan (K.R.’s mother) and Jeffrey Hills (B.H.’s father), respectively.

Case 2:14-cv-01145-JWS Document 97 Filed 07/20/16 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

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district courts exercise broad discretion when ruling on motions in limine.

2

 In

order for evidence to be excluded under such motions, it must be “clearly inadmissible

on all potential grounds.”3 “Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary

rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and

potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.”4

“It is settled law that in limine rulings are provisional. Such ‘rulings are not

binding on the trial judge [who] may always change his mind during the course of a

trial.’”5 “Denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence

contemplated by the motion will be admitted to trial. Denial merely means that without

the context of trial, the court is unable to determine whether the evidence in question

should be excluded.”6

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Christopher P. Thomas’ Report

After they were dismissed, Sidney Ryan and K.R. complained to Mesa Public

Schools (“MPS”) that their dismissal was motivated by religious discrimination.7

Assistant Superintendent Holly Williams investigated these allegations and determined

that there was no evidence of discrimination.8 When the students appealed this

2See Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002).

3

Ind. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004).

4Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Tech., Inc., 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993).

5United States v. Benedetti, 433 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Ohler v. United

States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000)).

6

Ind. Ins. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d at 846.

7Doc. 81-1 at 138. John Ryan, their father, wrote a separate report that alleged the

same thing. Doc. 81-1 at 132-33.

8Doc. 81-1 at 148-50.

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-01145-JWS Document 97 Filed 07/20/16 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

decision to Associate Superintendent Bruce Cox, Christopher P. Thomas (“Thomas”)

was asked to investigate the matter further.9 Thomas reviewed MPS’s documents,

conducted additional interviews, and submitted a 27-page report that summarizes the

facts.10

Plaintiffs raise three objections to Thomas’ report.11

 First, they assert that the

report is inadmissible because Thomas was neither a “fact witness” nor an expert who

was disclosed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). Although Goodman

does not respond to this argument, it misses the mark because Plaintiffs do not explain

why Thomas was not a lay witness. Do they contend that Thomas lacks personal

knowledge of the documents he summarized? Or that Thomas did not actually conduct

the interviews that he summarized in his report? Plaintiffs do not say. This objection is

overruled.

Second, Plaintiffs object that the report is irrelevant under Rule 401, apparently

because Plaintiffs think that Thomas is biased and the report was not the product of a

“full and fair investigation.” These considerations go to the report’s weight, not its

relevance. This objection is overruled.

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the report violates Rule 403 because it “was not

done as a result of the claims in this case” and therefore will result in unfair prejudice

and confusion of the issues.12 Plaintiffs do not cogently explain why the report would

lead to confusion of the issues or unfair prejudice. This objection is overruled. 

9Doc. 79-2 at 2.

10Doc. 79-2.

11Because Plaintiffs raise their fourth objection, hearsay, for the first time in reply, the

court need not consider it. See Gadda v. State Bar of Cal., 511 F.3d 933, 937 n.2 (9th Cir.

2007) (“[I]ssues cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief.”).

12Doc. 79 at 3.

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-01145-JWS Document 97 Filed 07/20/16 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

B. Social Media Posts

Plaintiffs next observe that “B.H. was questioned at her deposition regarding

certain allegations of social media activity . . . that did not occur during her time on the

team in 2014.”13 They argue that these social media posts are inadmissible because

they are irrelevant under Rule 402 and improper character evidence under

Rule 404(b)(1). But, because Plaintiffs do not provide the court with the deposition

transcript or copies of the posts that they seek to exclude, the court cannot evaluate the

merits of their objections. They are overruled.

C. Harassment and Bullying Reports

Plaintiffs object to the admission of the harassment and bullying reports that

several of their former teammates submitted to MPS because, according to Plaintiffs,

the claims in those reports are not supported by “specific facts.”14 As such, Plaintiffs

argue, they are irrelevant and improper character evidence under Rules 402,15

404(b)(1), and 608(b). But, whether the reports are supported by specific facts goes to

the weight of those reports, not their admissibility. A lack of specific facts would not

render the reports irrelevant or transform them into improper character evidence. 

Plaintiffs’ objections are overruled.

D. Steve Harris’ Notes

Following Plaintiffs’ dismissal, Athletic Director Steve Harris interviewed several

players on the team. Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Harris’ notes from these interviews

contain inadmissible hearsay under Rule 801. Plaintiffs seek wholesale exclusion of

the notes on hearsay grounds without pinpointing any specific statements that they

contend are out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted. 

13Doc. 79 at 3.

14Doc. 79 at 4.

15Plaintiffs cite Rule 401, but this rule merely provides the test for relevant evidence.

-4-

Case 2:14-cv-01145-JWS Document 97 Filed 07/20/16 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

Because Plaintiffs do not identify any specific statements that are inadmissible hearsay,

the court cannot evaluate the merits of their objections. This objection is overruled. 

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding discussion, Plaintiffs’ motion in limine is DENIED. 

DATED this 20th day of July 2016.

 /s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-5-

Case 2:14-cv-01145-JWS Document 97 Filed 07/20/16 Page 5 of 5