Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01459/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01459-0/pdf.json

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

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 WESTERN DIVISION

JOE GARDNER PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 4:04CV1459GH

SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL

LITTLE ROCK, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Plaintiff is a licensed practical nurse (LPN) who worked for defendant. He

alleges that defendant violated his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act

(“FMLA”) and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”) when he was discharged

because of his disability. There are currently pending cross motions for partial

summary judgment as well as certain procedural motions.

Early on in the litigation plaintiff filed a motion in limine. Defendant

responded, stating that discovery was not complete and that it was not in a position

at that time, to determine whether it would seek to introduce the evidence plaintiff

wants excluded. At this time, defendant should be able to advise plaintiff of its

position with regard to the evidence. Therefore, the Court will deny the motion in

limine without prejudice to renew to allow defendant time to advise plaintiff of its

position with regard to the items plaintiff seeks to exclude.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel, asking that defendant respond fully

to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 12, 14, and 16 and Requests for Production Nos. 7, and 14

-16. Defendant states that plaintiff’s motion is premature and unfounded based on

a previous agreement to stay discovery pending settlement negotiations. Should

settlement negotiations fail, defendant would have three weeks after the parties

mutually agreed in writing that settlement was no longer an option to supplement its

responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests. At the time plaintiff filed his motion to

Case 4:04-cv-01459-GH Document 38 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 3
1

Plaintiff and his wife are in the process of getting a divorce. It is unclear whether they are

divorced at this time.

-2-

compel, the parties were still engaged in settlement discussions. Indeed, the motion

to compel was filed prior to the joint motion for settlement conference. The case did

not settle.

The motion to compel is denied without prejudice to renew. The parties are

directed to attempt to resolve their discovery disputes. Should they be unable to,

plaintiff can seek assistance from the Court.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a protective order. Defendant has subpoenaed

plaintiff’s spouse for a deposition. 1

 Plaintiff asserts that any communications

between him and his spouse while they were living together made in private are

privileged. He asks that defendant not ask questions during the deposition of

plaintiff’s wife which involve private communications. 

Defendant objects. “Federal courts recognize two distinct marital privileges

under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence: the marital confidential

communication privilege and the adverse spousal testimony privilege. “ United States

v. Bad Wound, 203 F. 3d 1072, 1075 (8th Cir. 2000). The adverse testimony privilege

can be waived by the testifying spouse. See United States v. Jackson, 939 F. 2d 625,

626 (8th Cir. 1991). However, the marital confidential communication privilege,

which prohibits testimony concerning statements privately communicated between

spouses during their marriage, can be invoked by the nontestifying spouse. Id. Thus,

plaitniff’s spouse can waive the privilege with regard to testifying adversely against

platiniff, however, she is precluded from testifying about private communications.

To the extent plaintiff seeks protection regarding private communications during the

time plaintiff and his spouse lived together, the motion for protective order is granted.

Accordingly, the motion in limine is denied without prejudice to renew; the

motion to compel is denied without prejudice to renew; the motion for protective order

is granted to the extent set forth above. 

Case 4:04-cv-01459-GH Document 38 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 3
-3-

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of December, 2005.

___________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-01459-GH Document 38 Filed 12/07/05 Page 3 of 3