Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01682/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01682-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Youssef Shapour
Plaintiff
State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOUSSEF SHAPOUR,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Department of 

Transportation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:13-cv-01682-BAM

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE

(Doc. 67)

This action proceeds on Plaintiff Youssef Shapour’s claim against the State of California 

Department of Transportation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment 

discrimination based on retaliation for engaging in a protected activity. Docs. 1, 30. A jury trial 

is scheduled for March 8, 2016. 

Plaintiff filed his motions in limine on February 2, 2016. (Doc. 67). Defendant opposed 

the motion on February 12, 2016. (Doc. 68). Plaintiff’s motions in limine were heard before the 

Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe on February 22, 2016. Kevin Little appeared on behalf of 

Plaintiff Youssef Shapour. Matthew George appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant 

State of California, Department of Transportation. 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01682-BAM Document 77 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Motions in Limine

A. Standard

A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence 

before it is actually introduced at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984). 

“[A] motion in limine is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious 

and evenhanded management of the trial proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family 

Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve 

evidentiary disputes before trial and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in 

front of the jury. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Motions in limine that exclude broad categories of evidence are disfavored, and such 

issues are better dealt with during trial as the admissibility of evidence arises. Sperberg v. 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). Additionally, some 

evidentiary issues are not accurately and efficiently evaluated by the trial judge in a motion in 

limine and it is necessary to defer ruling until trial when the judge can better estimate the impact 

of the evidence on the jury. Jonasson, 115 F.3d at 440. 

B. Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine (“MIL”)

MIL 1: Plaintiff moves for an extended period of voir dire (30 minutes) to follow-up on 

potential anti-Muslim bias. Plaintiff also requests “more than the typical number of alternates” 

because he believes there is a greater chance jurors may be recused or disqualified. Defendant 

does not object to extended voir dire, but requests the same leeway to ascertain sectarian malice. 

Defendant does not object to the request for more alternates. 

As Defendant does not object, Plaintiff’s motion shall be granted. 

MIL 2: Plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of the discrimination and retaliation that he 

felt his supervisor, Ron Sekhon, who is of Indian descent, suffered. Plaintiff asserts that his 

claim of retaliation is based, in part, on Caltrans’ handling of complaints made by Christian 

employees against his supervisor. Plaintiff reportedly circulated a petition objecting to his 

supervisor’s treatment and shortly thereafter he was pressured to transfer.

Case 1:13-cv-01682-BAM Document 77 Filed 02/23/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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 response, Defendant contends that the motion should be denied because it fails to 

identify the evidence Plaintiff seeks to introduce. Defendant notes that there were 2 formal EEO 

complaints against the former supervisor, along with other complaints for retaliation, denying 

medical leave to a suicidal employee and confronting a safety officer in the parking lot. 

Defendant argues that evidence of complaints against the supervisor may result in jury confusion 

and waste of judicial time. Defendant indicates that the petition referred to does not include any 

language objecting to his supervisor’s treatment. 

The Court defers ruling on this motion in its entirety until trial. However, as discussed at 

the hearing, Plaintiff is not precluded from testifying about his participation in the investigation 

of the complaints against his supervisor, Mr. Sekhon, but the ultimate findings involving 

Plaintiff’s supervisor are not relevant and shall be excluded. Moreover, the handling of the 

complaints made by Christian employees against his supervisor is irrelevant to whether Plaintiff 

was retaliated against for Plaintiff’s participation in the proceeding. Additionally, the Court will 

not permit a trial of the supervisor’s adverse employment action. 

MIL 3: Plaintiff objects to any matters over which the defendant claimed a privilege in

discovery being used at trial. 

During the course of the hearing, Plaintiff clarified that the crux of his motion is to 

preclude witness testimony related to any statements relied upon by Mr. Tim Bullivant during 

the course of his investigation of the religious discrimination complaint against Plaintiff. 

According to Plaintiff, there were tapes made of the witness statements, which were not 

produced during the course of discovery. The witness statements were included in the

investigation report. 

Defendant indicated that it did not intend to proffer testimony from witnesses regarding 

the investigation with the exception of Mr. Bullivant and witness Brian Ash. Mr. Ash made a 

related complaint involving religious discrimination against Plaintiff and provided statements to 

Mr. Bullivant.

Having considered the parties’ arguments, Plaintiff’s motion in limine shall be granted in 

part and denied in part. The relevant report shall be admitted subject to objection at trial. 

Case 1:13-cv-01682-BAM Document 77 Filed 02/23/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Further, Mr. Bullivant’s testimony shall be limited to the process he engaged in during the course 

of the investigation and the statements in the report. 

MIL 4: Plaintiff seeks to preclude the introduction of insulting remarks he made during 

his deposition regarding his former supervisor, Margaret Schaeffer. Plaintiff believes his 

“unfortunate choice of words” would be far more prejudicial than probative. Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

Plaintiff also believes the evidence is impermissible “bad character evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 

404. 

Defendant asserts that the statements are relevant to Plaintiff’s then-attitude toward his 

supervisors and the retired interviewer, and are also relevant to Plaintiff’s bias and the 

reasonableness, or lack thereof, of his belief that he was retaliated against or made protected 

disclosures. Defendant also asserts that the statements bear on Plaintiff’s credibility and state of 

mind. Defendant contends that one of the issues is whether Plaintiff’s acting supervisor revised 

his duty statement and, if she did, whether she did for legitimate business reasons or as an 

amanuensis for the Chief of Construction because she was incapable of doing so on her own. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s statements are relevant to his state of mind and are not 

more prejudicial than probative. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Additionally, these statements are not 

impermissible character evidence and will not be introduced for the truth of Plaintiff’s 

statements. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of his statements regarding Ms. 

Schaeffer shall be denied.

MIL 5: Plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of how the investigations into complaints 

against him and Mr. Sekhon were performed in comparison to investigations of complaints filed 

by him. Plaintiff believes this is potential evidence of disparate treatment and retaliatory intent. 

Defendant argues that investigation into complaints against non-parties is irrelevant. 

Defendant contends that any such evidence of complaints against Plaintiff’s supervisor could 

only serve to confuse the jury. Plaintiff does not identify the complaints he references in his 

motion, either against his supervisor or those made by Plaintiff. Defendant also points out that 

Plaintiff made different complaints to different agencies, so differences in the investigative 

Case 1:13-cv-01682-BAM Document 77 Filed 02/23/16 Page 4 of 5
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

process are inevitable. Defendant argues that a comparison of how the investigations were 

performed would be meaningless and confusing because of the differing agencies.

The Court finds that the method of investigation of various claims is irrelevant to 

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim and further would consume time for a “trial within a trial.” Fed. R. 

Evid. 401, 403. Plaintiff’s assertion of disparate treatment is not a surviving claim in this action. 

II. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion in limine #1 is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion in limine #2 is DEFERRED. Plaintiff is not precluded from 

testifying about his participation in the investigation of the complaints against his 

supervisor, Mr. Sekhon, but the handling of the investigation and the ultimate 

findings involving Plaintiff’s supervisor are not relevant and shall be excluded;

3. Plaintiff’s motion in limine #3 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The 

relevant report shall be admitted subject to objection at trial. Further, Mr. Bullivant’s 

testimony shall be limited to the process he engaged in during the course of the 

investigation and the statements in the report; 

4. Plaintiff’s motion in limine #4 is DENIED; and

5. Plaintiff’s motion in limine #5 is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01682-BAM Document 77 Filed 02/23/16 Page 5 of 5