Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01827/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01827-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:626 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission,

Plaintiff,

v.

Lennar Homes of Arizona, Inc.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-03-1827-PHX-DGC

ORDER

A Final Pretrial Conference was held on March 17, 2006. Counsel appeared on behalf

of Plaintiff and Defendant. On the basis of the parties’ written submissions and the hearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Trial in this matter shall begin on July 14, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

2. The trial shall last 9 days (July 14, 18-21, 25-28, 2006). Plaintiffs shall be

allotted 24 hours of trial time and Defendants shall be allotted 24 hours of trial time. The

Court will keep track of each side’s time. Opening and closing statements, direct

examination, and cross-examination shall be counted against the parties’ allotted time.

3. A final conference shall be held on June 22, 2006, at 4:30 p.m. in Courtroom

603, Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix,

Arizona 85003. Out-of-state counsel may participate by telephone.

4. The parties’ amended proposed final pretrial order shall govern the presentation

of evidence and other trial issues. Evidence, objections, legal arguments, and relief not

Case 2:03-cv-01827-DGC Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 6
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 -

requested or identified in the order shall not be available at trial. 

5. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine No. 1. Doc. #179. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. Evidence of Mr. Leach’s delay

in filing a charge with the EEOC may be relevant to his credibility and to Lennar’s failure

to preserve evidence related to his claim. Lennar stated in its response that it does not intend

to introduce evidence regarding the EEOC’s dismissal of Mr. Leach’s claim as untimely.

6. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2. Doc. #180. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court granted the motion. The testimony of Ms. Reh was

not disclosed as required by Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not

being presented solely for impeachment. Although the testimony potentially would impeach

the testimony of Ms. Harris by contradiction, it would also constitute substantive evidence

on whether or not Ms. Harris had a conversation with a manager about Ms. Judge’s age.

Because of this substantive component, it is not evidence admitted solely for impeachment

and therefore should have been disclosed. 

7. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3. Doc. #183. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. Defendant will argue that

previous management focused solely on financial results and overlooked bad behavior, such

as the alleged harassment by Mr. Cameron. The Court cannot determine at this time whether

this evidence will be relevant, and, if it is, whether the relevance is substantially outweighed

by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Ev. 403.

8. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4. Doc. #205. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. Defendant will be afforded an

opportunity at trial to establish the relevance and admissibility of the customer satisfaction

survey for the fourth quarter of 1999. 

9. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 5. Doc. #182. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. The claimants’ tax returns may

be relevant to issues such as mitigation, health, and other issues. The Court cannot determine

their relevancy until trial.

Case 2:03-cv-01827-DGC Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 6
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 -

10. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 5. Doc. #204. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. Defendant will be afforded an

opportunity at trial to establish the relevance and admissibility of the American Lives survey

responses. 

11. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 8. Doc. #196. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. Defendant indicated that it will

not seek to introduce general opinion testimony about the propensity of Mr. Dowell or others

to discriminate, but that it will seek to introduce evidence within the specific knowledge of

the witnesses at issue. The Court does not have sufficient information to rule on the

admissibility of such testimony at this stage.

12. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 9. Doc. #201. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court granted the motion in part. Defendant will be

permitted to elicit evidence concerning the fact that Mr. Cameron was terminated by Centex

Homes and was terminated for disciplinary reasons. The Court concluded, however, that the

specific reason for the termination – alleged sexual misconduct – would be unfairly

prejudicial to Plaintiff and would outweigh the probative value of such evidence. Fed. R. Ev.

403. Thus, the motion in limine was granted with respect to the specific reasons for Mr.

Cameron’s termination.

13. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 10. Doc. #200. Plaintiff

stated that it did not oppose the use of unnamed witnesses to present foundation for the

admissibility of documents. Because Defendant asserts that the unnamed witnesses will be

used for this purpose only, the motion in limine was denied. If Defendant seeks to introduce

substantive testimony from any of the unnamed witnesses, the Court will sustain an objection

from Plaintiff because the witnesses were not disclosed as required.

14. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 11. Doc. #199. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. Whether or not Dr. Mayer’s

opinions will be relevant in light of Plaintiffs evidence can only be determined at trial. 

15. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 12. Doc. #202. For

Case 2:03-cv-01827-DGC Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 6
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 -

reasons stated on the record, the Court granted the motion. Defendant stated that it does not

intend to introduce the age profile in question. 

16. The Court addressed Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1. Doc. #185. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. The Court cannot determine at

this stage whether evidence of Defendant’s business practices will be relevant on questions

of credibility, pretext, or other relevant issues. 

17. The Court addressed Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2. Doc. #188. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. The Court cannot determine at

this stage whether evidence of hiring younger employees will be relevant to issues raised at

trial. 

18. The Court addressed Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3. Doc. #189. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. The Court cannot determine at

this stage whether a limiting instruction to the jury concerning the hearsay statements by Ms.

Zoeber would be effective. Those hearsay statements concern the alleged discriminator in

this case, Mr. Dowell, and hearsay testimony about alleged statements by Mr. Dowell might

be too prejudicial to be presented to the jury, even with a limiting instruction, because the

jury might be unable to honor the instruction. The Court informed the parties that Ms.

Judge’s internal complaint and the company’s response to that complaint likely will be

relevant, but whether the Court will also permit Ms. Judge to testify about the statements

made by Ms. Zoeber regarding the question allegedly asked by Mr. Dowell is an issue the

Court must resolve at trial.

19. The Court addressed Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4. Doc. #193. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. The Court does not conclude that

Plaintiff failed to disclose these witnesses. They were identified in the fourth supplemental

disclosure statement as witnesses in the case. Although Defendant now objects that the

disclosures were untimely because they occurred shortly before the discovery cut-off date,

no objection was made at the time. The Court cannot determine at this stage whether

testimony from Ms. Nikrant’s customers would be relevant. Defendant argues that the

Case 2:03-cv-01827-DGC Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 4 of 6
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 -

evidence is irrelevant because Defendant relied on surveys, not on specific comments from

customers. This is an issue the Court must address at trial.

20. The Court addressed Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 5. Doc. #192. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court granted the motion with respect to Mr. Scher’s

settlement agreement and denied the motion with respect to Mr. Stokey’s severance

agreement. The Court concluded that the severance agreement is not excluded under

Rule 408 because it is not a compromise of a claim at issue in this case, and the Court is

unable to determine at this point whether the severance agreement would be probative on the

question of Mr. Stokey’s bias.

21. The Court addressed Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 6. Doc. #195. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. Testimony by Ms. Stoutenburgh

concerns more than the use of the American Lives surveys within her department. The Court

cannot determine whether the evidence presented is admissible or whether it simply concerns

employees in dissimilar jobs and therefore is irrelevant. See Josephs v. Pacific Bell, 432 F.2d

1006, 1017 (9th Cir. 2005), and Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir.

2003).

22. The Court addressed Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 7. Doc. #197. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. The Court cannot determine at

this stage whether younger sales personnel functioned in similar jobs and engaged in similar

conduct. See Josephs, 432 F.2d at 1017. The Court will address this issue at trial.

23. The Court addressed Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 8. Doc. #198. For

reasons stated on the record, the Court granted the motion. Mr. Ledwidge was terminated

for harassment and for bringing a gun to work, conduct not similar to that of the claimants.

See Josephs, 432 F.3d at 1017. If Plaintiff believes that the process of Mr. Ledwidge’s

termination is relevant to the question of whether claimants were in fact terminated for

disciplinary reasons, they can raise the issue at trial outside the hearing of the jury.

24. The Court provided the parties with proposed preliminary jury instructions and

voir dire questions. These will be addressed during the final conference on June 22, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01827-DGC Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

25. The parties shall provide the Court with a final witness list, to be read to the

jury panel during voir dire, at the final conference to be held on June 22, 2006. This list

should include only those witnesses who will or may be called to testify at trial.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01827-DGC Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 6 of 6