UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-22343-KMM

JORGE MENTEAGUDO ALBURQUERQUE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

THE DE MOYA GROUP, INC., 

A Florida Profit Corporation 

Defendant.

___________________________________ / 

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Jorge Menteagudo Alburquerque’s 

(“Plaintiff”) Motion in Limine. (“Mot.”) (ECF No. 42.) Defendant The De Moya Group

(“Defendant”) filed a response in opposition, (“Resp”) (ECF No. 48), and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

(“Reply”) (ECF No. 53). The Motion is now ripe for review. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this Amended Complaint, (“Am. Compl.”) (ECF No. 13), against Defendant, 

Plaintiff’s former employer, alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”). See 

generally Am. Compl. 

As relevant to the instant Motion, Plaintiff filed charges of discrimination with the MiamiDade County Commission on Human Rights (“CHR”). Mot. at 5. On or about December 1, 2021, 

the CHR issued a statement of determination of no probable cause (“Statement of Determination”). 

Id. Now, Plaintiff moves in limine to exclude the Statement of Determination. See generally id. 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2023 Page 1 of 5
2

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“In fairness to the parties and their ability to put on their case, a court should exclude 

evidence in limine only when it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” United States v. 

Gonzalez, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (citation omitted). “The movant has the 

burden of demonstrating that the evidence is inadmissible on any relevant ground.” Id. (citation 

omitted). “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.” Palmetto 241 LLC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-22195, 2020 WL 2736646, at *1 

(S.D. Fla. May 26, 2020) (cleaned up). 

III. DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff argues the Statement of Determination should be excluded because its 

probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. Mot. at 5. 

Specifically, “Plaintiff contends that a jury may find it hard, if not impossible, to independently 

evaluate the evidence presented by the parties after being informed that the [Commission] has 

already investigated the claim and determined that reasonable cause does or does not exist to 

believe that unlawful discrimination has occurred.” Id. Plaintiff argues the Statement of 

Determination is conclusory because no explanation is provided as to what materials were 

considered in reaching its conclusion. Id. at 6.

In the Eleventh Circuit, letters of determination are prima facie admissible under the 

exception to the hearsay rule that permits “in a civil case ... factual findings from a legally 

authorized investigation.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(A)(iii) (formerly Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)); Barfield 

v. Orange Cnty., 911 F.2d 644, 649 (11th Cir. 1990). It is well-established that EEOC 

determinations are admissible in bench trials, but the same liberal standard of admissibility does 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2023 Page 2 of 5
3

not extend to jury trials. Walker v. NationsBank of Fla. N.A., 53 F.3d 1548, 1554 (11th Cir. 1995).

The Eleventh Circuit has held that “[b]ecause the decision whether to admit such reports 

involves so many variables, we think it best to leave the decision in the sound discretion of the 

district court.” Barfield, 911 F.2d at 650. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit has instructed trial 

courts to examine agency letters on a case-by-case basis and consider whether the letters contain 

legal conclusions, raise questions of trustworthiness or present problems under Rule 403. Id. Rule 

403 permits trial courts to “exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially 

outweighed by a danger of ... unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue 

delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

In Barfield, the Eleventh Circuit held that an EEOC report determining that there was no 

reasonable cause to believe that employment discrimination allegations were true was admissible 

under the public records exception to the hearsay rule in a jury trial where the plaintiff offered no 

evidence that the EEOC materials would suffer from any defects in trustworthiness. 911 F.2d at 

650. Similarly, in Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., Inc., the Eleventh Circuit found no abuse of 

discretion in the district court’s admission of an EEOC determination letter at trial where the trial 

judge explained what an EEOC determination was and instructed the jury to guard against the 

improper use of the evidence, holding that, “in the light of this instruction, we cannot conclude 

that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted the EEOC determination.” 513 F.3d 

1261, 1288–89 (11th Cir. 2008).

The Statement of Determination at issue in this case includes a detailed summary of the 

claims alleged, as well as the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s stated positions on the issues. The 

Statement of Determination includes a thorough description of the materials the CHR considered 

in making its findings, including, for example, the New Hire Orientation package signed by 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2023 Page 3 of 5
4 

Defendant, written statements, Workplace Incident Reports, and statements from other employees 

of Defendant. The agency not only identifies the evidence it considered in making its 

determination, but also directly quotes and explains the evidence. 

In conducting a Rule 403 analysis, this Court recognizes that the Eleventh Circuit has 

stated—and reiterated—that agency reports are “highly probative.” Smith v. Universal Services, 

Inc., 454 F.2d 154 (5th Cir. 1972); Barfield, 911 at 644. While “highly probative,” this Court must 

still determine whether the probative value of the agency report at issue is substantially outweighed 

by one of the “dangers” enumerated in Rule 403. Weighing the probative value of the subject 

documents against the danger of unfair prejudice, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 

establish a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that the administrative agencies’ findings and 

conclusions are untrustworthy or that its probative value is outweighed by undue prejudice or the 

danger of confusion by the jury. 

However, the Court finds that the CHR’s analysis of the Disparate Treatment Claim, which 

is no longer at issue in this case, is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation. Accordingly, the 

Disparate Treatment Claim analysis shall be redacted from the Statement of Determination. 

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff's position that admission of these agencies’ findings 

and determinations may result in undue prejudice or risk of confusion may be alleviated by the 

Court instructing the jury as to how it should consider the agencies determination in deciding the 

issues in this case. 

IV. CONCLUSION

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being

otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s 

Motion in Limine (ECF No. 42) is DENIED. 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2023 Page 4 of 5
5

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ______ day of May, 2023.

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

1st

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2023 Page 5 of 5