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

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION IN LIMINE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

YUSEF SA’AD, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MUKASEY,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-0596RSL

ORDER REGARDING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE

This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s motion in limine to preclude plaintiff

from offering into evidence (1) testimony concerning a racial epithet allegedly uttered by

Captain Bruce Conger regarding another employee and before plaintiff’s non-selection for the

position at issue, and (2) testimony alleging that in 2003, Captain Conger interfered with

plaintiff’s attempts to take administrative leave and made threatening comments to plaintiff

(collectively, the “challenged testimony”). Captain Conger was plaintiff’s immediate supervisor

after plaintiff transferred to the FDC Seatac facility in 2003 until Captain Conger retired in

2005.

The challenged testimony is not relevant to plaintiff’s case in chief, particularly because

Captain Conger was not a decisionmaker regarding the promotion plaintiff sought. Instead, that

decision was made solely by Warden Palmquist. Plaintiff argues that the comments are

Case 2:06-cv-00596-RSL Document 39 Filed 02/28/08 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

27

28

1

 For example, if Captain Conger permitted other employees to apply prior to a job

announcement and then selected them for promotion, plaintiff might be permitted to introduce

portions of the challenged testimony.

2

 The Court also notes that the findings and conclusions in this order, like all rulings in

limine, are preliminary and can be revisited at trial based on the facts and evidence as they are

actually presented. See, e.g., Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984) (explaining that a

ruling in limine “is subject to change when the case unfolds, particularly if the actual testimony

differs from what was contained in the proffer. Indeed even if nothing unexpected happens at

trial, the district judge is free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in

limine ruling.”). Subject to these principles, the Court issues this ruling for the guidance of the

parties.

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION IN LIMINE - 2

admissible because Captain Conger “blocked” plaintiff’s previous informal promotion

application by directing him to “go through the process like everyone else.” Warden Palmquist

instructed Captain Conger to inform plaintiff to go through the process because at the time, there

was no job announcement for the position. This comment does not evidence bias. Nor does it

show that Captain Conger was a decisionmaker. Therefore, plaintiff has not shown that the

challenged testimony is relevant.1

 In addition, based on the current record, it appears that any

relevance is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, jury confusion, and undue delay. 

Therefore, plaintiff will not be permitted to present the challenged testimony in his case in chief. 

However, if Captain Conger testifies, plaintiff’s counsel may cross-examine him regarding the

challenged testimony because it is relevant to whether he maintains any bias against plaintiff in

particular and/or against minorities in general.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion in limine (Dkt. #25) is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART.2

 DATED this 28th day of February, 2008.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

Case 2:06-cv-00596-RSL Document 39 Filed 02/28/08 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

27

28

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION IN LIMINE - 3

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00596-RSL Document 39 Filed 02/28/08 Page 3 of 3