UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JEAN-ROBERT CADET

Plaintiff

vs

MADEIRA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

BOARD OF EDUCATION

MICHELE W. HUMMEL

CHRIS J. MATE

PAUL W. IMHOFF

Defendants

CASE NO. C-1-01-131

(Judge Herman J. Weber)

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE

CERTAIN EVIDENCE

In response to plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude certain evidence,

defendants hereby submit this memorandum in opposition. In examining

plaintiff’s motion in limine, it appears that he is arguing that defendants be barred

from referring in any way to plaintiff’s previous EEOC/OCRC charges, introducing

into evidence the EEOC/OCRC investigative files pertaining to those charges, and

introducting into evidence any stray remarks that are irrelevant to the issues in this

case but are introduced for the purpose of attacking plaintiff’s character. The

defendants wish to take these points in the order that they are presented by

Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 57 Filed 09/19/2003 Page 1 of 4
2

plaintiff.

A. Plaintiff’s Previous EEOC/OCRC Charges Might Be Relevant

Depending Upon Plaintiff’s Testimony

The defendants will concede that they do not have any intention of

introducing in their case in chief any evidence of plaintiff’s previous claims of

discrimination resulting in charges filed with the EEOC or OCRC. However,

depending upon plaintiff’s testimony during his case in chief, it is possible that he

may open the door to the introduction of such evidence, concerning his previous

EEOC/OCRC charges against former employers or prospective employers. 

Accordingly, this motion in limine is premature.

B. Material From The EEOC File Is Admissible In This Matter

Plaintiff is correct that appellate courts have generally upheld the exclusion

of EEOC investigatory files because they represent a “mish-mash of self-serving

and hearsay statements and record”. Waller v. Thames, 852 F.2d 569 (1988). 

However, in this case, the evidence that the defendants have proposed as a trial

exhibit consists of written questions to plaintiff with the plaintiff’s written answers. 

This is not a complete investigatory file of the EEOC nor does it contain self-serving

and hearsay statements. It consists of plaintiff’s own responses to written

questions and, as such, would be admissible as admissions by a party. Indeed,

Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 57 Filed 09/19/2003 Page 2 of 4
3

as the plaintiff concedes on Page 5 of his motion, the Court may determine on a

case by case basis which, if any, of the EEOC investigatory file documents should

be admitted at trial. In this case, the document submittted by defendants, at

Proposed Exhibit No. 28, is admissible. 

C. The Term “Stray Remarks” Is Too Vague For A Ruling At This Time

Plaintiff also asks that stray remarks that reflect negatively on plaintiff’s

character be ruled inadmissible. The comments referred to on Page 6 of plaintiff’s

motion in limine are an example of some stray remarks that were uncovered

during discovery but are not examples of evidence that defendants expect to

introduce at trial. The concern of plaintiff about “stray remarks that reflect

negatively” is unclear as to what evidence is specifically referred to. Certainly,

remarks by plaintiff that are relayed by witnesses would constitute admissible

evidence and defendants suggest that the proper way to address the admissibility

of such comments would be at the time they are made in trial. The Court is

certainly free to give a limiting instruction to the jury about the impact of such

evidence that is subsequently ruled inadmissible by the Court. This is no different

than any other trial in which statements by the parties are put into evidence. 

/s/ R. Gary Winters 

R. Gary Winters 0018680

Bernard W. Wharton 0063487

Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 57 Filed 09/19/2003 Page 3 of 4
4

Attorneys for Defendants

McCASLIN, IMBUS & McCASLIN

Suite 900 Provident Bank Building

632 Vine Street

Cincinnati, OH 45202-2442

(513) 421-4646

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 16th day of September, 2003, a copy of the

foregoing document was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all

parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this

filing through the Court’s system.

s/ R. Gary Winters 

R. Gary Winters 0018680

Bernard W. Wharton 0063487

Attorneys for Defendants, Madeira City 

School District Board of Education, Michele

W. Hummel, Chris J. Mate, Paul W. Imhoff 

Suite 900 Provident Building

632 Vine Street

Cincinnati, OH 45202-2442

(513) 421-4646 (phone)

(513) 421-7929 (fax)

rgarywinters@zoomtown.com

bwharton@zoomtown.com

Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 57 Filed 09/19/2003 Page 4 of 4