UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE

GORDON GULLIFORD,SR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 4:15-CV-19-PRC

)

SCHILLI TRANSPORTATION )

SERVICES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine [DE 56], filed on January

12, 2017, by Plaintiff Gordon Gulliford, Sr., by counsel, and Defendant’s Motions In Limine [DE

63], filed on January 12, 2017, by Defendant Schilli Transportation Services, Inc., by counsel. The

Court has also considered the briefing in support of each motion, Defendant’s Response To

Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine [DE 67] filed January 27, 2017, and Plaintiff’s Brief In Opposition To

Defendant’s Motions In Limine [DE 68] filed January 27, 2017. No replies were permitted.

In determination of these issues the Court FINDS, ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and

DECREES:

Federal Rule of Evidence 104 provides, in part: “Preliminary questions concerning . . .

admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the Court.” Motions in Limine to exclude evidence

prior to trial are subject to a rigorous standard of review. Courts may bar evidence in limine “only

when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Dartey v. Ford Motor Co., 104 F.

Supp. 2d 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (quoting Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., 831 F. Supp.

1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)). If evidence does not meet this standard, “the evidentiary rulings should

be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevance and potential prejudice may be
resolved in proper context.” Id. (quoting Hawthorne, 831 F. Supp. at 1400).

A court’s rulings in limine are preliminary in nature and subject to change. In this Order the

Court is not making final determination on the admissibility of any evidence. The Court reserves the

right to change these rulings during the trial should the Court find that the evidence or arguments

at trial justify such change.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE

 1. Evidence or arguments regarding determination, findings, or disposition of Plaintiff

Gulliford’s EEOC charge.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant STS has

no objection.

 2. Evidence or arguments about Plaintiff Gulliford’s EEOC charge of discrimination.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant STS has

no objection.

 3. Evidence or arguments on Plaintiff Gulliford’s claims dismissed by this Court prior

to trial.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant STS has

no objection.

 4. Evidence or argument about statements by Ronald Cox and / or Kevin O’Connell

about Defendant STS’s Tax Department and / or Plaintiff Gulliford’s performance
of his work.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is partially GRANTED and partially DENIED in

this regard.

Cox and O’Connell may testify as lay witnesses pursuant to F.R.E. 701 about how

much actual work Plaintiff Gulliford did, or may have unnecessarily created, or may

have given the appearance of doing. They may testify about their communication

about these things to Thomas Schilli prior to Schilli’s decision to eliminate the Tax

Department.

 5. Evidence or argument about Plaintiff Gulliford signing a lease agreement.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is partially GRANTED and partially DENIED in

this regard.

It is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to exclude evidence of Plaintiff Gulliford’s

signature on the lease as after-acquired evidence. It may not be presented to show

that Defendant STS would have terminated Plaintiff Gulliford’s employment anyway

had Defendant STS known of his signature. It is otherwise DENIED. The evidence

may, or may not, be admissible at trial for another purpose depending upon in-trial

circumstances.

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

 1. Evidence or arguments about plaintiff Gulliford’s 2012 leave and his lifting and

activity restrictions.

RULING: The Defendant’s Motion In Limine is partially GRANTED and partially DENIED
in this regard.

It is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff Gulliford may attempt to present such 

evidence (his 2012 request for leave and his lifting and activity restrictions) to prove 

either retaliation or failure to accommodate by Defendant STS. It is otherwise 

generally DENIED. Plaintiff Gulliford may present such evidence to prove disability

under the ADA or serious health condition under the FMLA.

 2. Evidence or arguments about Plaintiff Gulliford’s October 2013 request for part-time

work.

RULING: The Defendant’s Motion In Limine is DENIED in this regard. 

Plaintiff Gulliford may introduce evidence or argument that on or about October 8,

2013, he requested part-time employment and that Defendant STS denied the

request. Plaintiff Gulliford, however, is not permitted to assert at trial a reasonable

accommodation claim or retaliation claim based upon his October 8, 2013 request

for part-time employment.

3. Evidence or arguments about Brian Nehrig’s statement about Defendant STS’s cost

analysis of elimination of its Tax Department.

RULING: The Defendant’s Motion In Limine is DENIED in this regard.

 4. Evidence or arguments about Thomas Schilli’s six million dollar man statement.

RULING: The Defendant’s Motion In Limine is DENIED in this regard.
5. Evidence or argument about pay cuts in 2008 and later permanency of Plaintiff

Gulliford’s pay cut.

RULING: The Defendant’s Motion In Limine is DENIED in this regard.

 6. Evidence or arguments about Plaintiff Gulliford’s July 18, 2008 letter.

RULING: The Defendant’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.

The July 18, 2008 letter from Plaintiff Gulliford to Wanda Miller and Joe Jenkins

itself is not admissible. This ruling does not necessarily prohibit any witness from 

otherwise testifying about a matter contained in the letter.

 7. Evidence or argument regarding a compensatory damages claim by Plaintiff

Gulliford.

RULING: The Defendant’s Motion In Limine is DENIED in this regard.

 8. Evidence or argument regarding this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff Gulliford’s ADEA

(age discrimination) claim.

RULING: The Defendant’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.

Plaintiff Gulliford has no objection.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine [DE 56] is GRANTED in part and DENIED

in part. The Defendant’s Motions In Limine [DE 63] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

So ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2017.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT