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 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

IN LIMINE REGARDING WESTMINSTER

EMPLOYMENT AND LAWSUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

FANAYE TURNER, )

) No. C05-1575RSL

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON and, ) MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE

BUDDY RATNER, ) EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION

) RE: WESTMINSTER EMPLOYMENT

Defendants. ) PRIOR LAWSUIT

_______________________________________)

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine to Exclude

Evidence and Information re: Westminster Employment Prior Lawsuit” (Dkt. #25). In her

motion, plaintiff seeks to exclude documents and information regarding her former employment

by Westminster College and her lawsuit that followed this employment filed in 1991 in the

United States District Court for the District of Utah (the “Westminster information”). For the

reasons set forth below, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion in limine under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)

and 403.

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) states: “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not

admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It

Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 57 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 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 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

IN LIMINE REGARDING WESTMINSTER

EMPLOYMENT AND LAWSUIT -2-

may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,

preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident[.]” In the Ninth

Circuit, “[t]he appropriate test to determine admissibility under Rule 404(b) . . . provides: (1)

the other act evidence must tend to prove a material point; (2) the other act must not be too

remote in time; (3) the evidence must be sufficient to support a finding that the defendant

committed the other act; and (4) in some cases, the other act must be similar to the offense

charged.” United States v. Bibo-Rodiguez, 922 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1991). “[E]ven if all

four conditions are met, the evidence may still be excluded if under a Federal Rule of Evidence

403 analysis its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” 

Id. at 1400-01. Based on this authority, the Court first finds that defendants have not shown that

the they are offering the Westminster information for a material point other than that plaintiff’s

actions at the University of Washington are in conformity with actions taken at Westminster

College, which is the type of character evidence expressly precluded by Rule 404(b). As

defendants state in their response, “the evidence is being introduced for the purpose of showing

the striking similarities between Ms. Turner’s dispute involving Westminster College and her

dispute against the University of Washington and Dr. Ratner.” The Westminster information is

distinguishable from the evidence allowed in Gastineau v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., 137 F.3d 490,

495 (7th Cir. 1998), a case cited by defendants, where the court allowed evidence of a common

scheme or plan “of creating fraudulent documents in anticipation of litigation against his

employers.” Here, defendants have not asserted that the Westminster information evinces a plan

or “modus operandi” by plaintiff. Id. The Court also finds that the Westminster information is

too remote time to be admissible, since the Westminster lawsuit was filed in 1991, and plaintiff

was last employed by Westminster College in 1990. 

 The Court also excludes the Westminster information under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because

the Court finds that the marginal probative value of fifteen-year-old material is substantially

Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 57 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 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 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

IN LIMINE REGARDING WESTMINSTER

EMPLOYMENT AND LAWSUIT -3-

outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to plaintiff and would result in confusion of the

issues. In order to admit the Westminster information, the Court would also effectively have to

conduct a mini-trial on the facts at issue in the 1991 District of Utah case, which would both

confuse the number fact-intensive allegations in this case, see Dkt. #2 (Complaint), and result in

undue delay.

III. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, “Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence and

Information re: Westminster Employment Prior Lawsuit” (Dkt. #25) is GRANTED.

DATED this 10th day of October, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 57 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 3