CORE/3505308.0002/156250350.1 

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

Carrie M. Francis (020453)

Stefan M. Palys (024752) 

Michael Vincent (029864)

STINSON LLP

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584 

Tel: (602) 279-1600 

Fax: (602) 240-6925 

Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com

stefan.palys@stinson.com

michael.vincent@stinson.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Thacker, No. 2:18-cv-00063-PHX-DGC

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN 

LIMINE TO PRECLUDE 

EVIDENCE OR THE USE OF 

TERMS RELATED TO DISMISSED 

CLAIMS 

Plaintiff,

v.

GPS Insight, LLC; Robert J. Donat, 

Individually and as Trustee of The 

Robert Donat Living Trust Dated April 

19, 2017, 

Defendants.

Defendants request an order in limine as follows: 

Precluding Plaintiff from offering argument, testimonial or documentary 

evidence, or using phrases associated with claims and issues previously 

resolved by the Court. This includes references to sexual harassment of 

Ms. Lisson including quid pro quo behavior, retaliation against Mr. Thacker 

and Ms. Lisson for objecting to sexual harassment including the quid pro 

quo behavior, actions taken and statements made against Mr. Thacker for 

being associated with Ms. Lisson and objecting to the sexual harassment 

and quid pro quo behavior, and Ms. Lisson’s knowledge of relevant 

documents unproduced by Defendants. Plaintiff shall additionally be 

precluded from offering the following exhibits: Exhibits 12, 83, 106, 118, 

and 136. 

As detailed below, the Court has resolved several legal issues through pre-trial 

rulings. Plaintiff nevertheless intends to offer evidence on these issues. The Court should 

preclude him from doing so. 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DGC Document 164 Filed 11/26/19 Page 1 of 5
2 

CORE/3505308.0002/156250350.1 

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

Title VII 

The Court previously granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Title VII and Fair 

Credit Reporting Act claims. (Docs. 151, 162) The remaining claims for trial are tortious 

interference with contract, intrusion upon seclusion, false light, and defamation. 

Plaintiff’s portions of the proposed pretrial order reveals that they intend to offer 

testimony and exhibits that are only relevant to these dismissed claims. Joint Pretrial 

Order § D(1)(a) (plaintiff contends Donat’s wrongful motive for tortious interference was 

“his desire to continue his harassment of Ms. Lisson”) For example, Plaintiff discloses 

that Kristin Lisson will testify regarding Robert Donat’s alleged “continued sexual 

harassment of her including quid pro quo behavior, the actions taken and statements made 

against Mr. Thacker for being associated with Ms. Lisson and objecting to the sexual 

harassment . . . .” Joint Pretrial Order § E(b). Other witnesses’ anticipated testimony 

relates to the Title VII claim and uses Title VII buzz words. Joint Pretrial Order § E(d), 

(e), (f), (g), (h), (m). Plaintiff likewise lists evidence that would only have been relevant 

(if at all) to a Title VII claim, such as the email in which Kristin Lisson first makes a 

complaint – sent three days after Plaintiff was terminated. (Ex. 83). These are the precise 

legal theories and evidentiary issues the Court resolved through summary judgment.1

(Doc. 151 at 3-20, Doc. 162 at 2-4) 

Plaintiff is precluded from re-litigating issues already resolved by the Court’s 

summary judgment ruling and ruling on the motion to reconsider the same. Arguments, 

phrases, and evidence pertaining to the Title VII claim are not relevant to any element of 

a claim to be tried, and such references will only confuse the jury as to the issues, and 

 

1

 Similarly, Ms. Lisson recently testified at a state court hearing that she supposedly 

complained about harassment to Jason Walker prior to March 9, 2019, despite her 

testimony in this case that she did not complain about harassment until March 9, 2019. 

The Court has already resolved this precise issue. (Doc. 151 at 9:26-10:4 (noting Ms. 

Lisson’s testimony that she “actually made [her] complaint on March 9” . . . .). Her 

complaints to a supervisor, however, would only have been relevant to the Title VII claim. 

Such testimony has no bearing on any element of a claim or defense regarding the tortious 

interference claim against Rob Donat. 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DGC Document 164 Filed 11/26/19 Page 2 of 5
3 

CORE/3505308.0002/156250350.1 

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

waste time. FRE 402, 403. Further, use of Title VII buzz-phrases will unfairly prejudice 

Defendants because the terms are so charged, such as “harassment” or “quid pro quo.” 

Indeed, Plaintiff has made clear he hopes to inflame the decision-maker such that the case 

will be decided on such an improper basis. (Plf.’s Mot. for Reconsideration (Doc. 153 at 

5), claiming Donat should have stopped his alleged pursuit of Lisson without her having 

to complain, but that “such is rarely the case for rich, unscrupulous men, as recent national 

events have made clear.”). 

Discovery Disputes 

The Court has resolved numerous discovery disputes in this case. Most recently, 

the Court ruled that Defendants were not required to produce certain text messages 

between Rob Donat and Kristin Lisson, in part because Plaintiff had not properly 

requested them under the discovery rules. (Doc. 161 at 4-5) Nevertheless, Plaintiff has 

listed Ms. Lisson to testify about her “knowledge of documents unproduced by 

Defendants . . . .” Plaintiff has additionally listed exhibits and issues that suggest he is 

going to argue that Defendant destroyed documents after it knew litigation was likely. 

See Exs. 112, 116 (litigation hold letters); Pretrial Order § D(1)(p) (making same 

argument as was addressed in Doc. 152 at p.4 § III and p.8 § II that there was supposedly 

spoliation of a sales policy) Plaintiff elected not to pursue the Court’s direction to file a 

motion if he believed there had been spoliation. (Doc. 155 at (2) (resolving issues raised 

in Doc. 152)) Defendants have produced everything they were required to whether under 

the MIDP Order or this Court’s subsequent discovery dispute orders. 

The Court ruled there are no “documents unproduced by Defendants,” only 

documents not properly requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is precluded from arguing 

otherwise or adducing contrary testimony. Nor is such testimony relevant. FRE 402. 

Rather, such evidence/argument only seeks to incorrectly imply that Defendants engaged 

in misconduct in this case and have the jury decide the case based on that improper 

premise. It is therefore unfairly prejudicial and seeks to inflame the jury. FRE 403. 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DGC Document 164 Filed 11/26/19 Page 3 of 5
4 

CORE/3505308.0002/156250350.1 

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

Statement of Conferral 

Undersigned counsel certifies that they have in good faith conferred with opposing 

counsel in an effort to resolve the disputed evidentiary issues that are the subject of the 

motion. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of November, 2019. 

 STINSON LLP 

By: /s/ Stefan Palys 

 Carrie M. Francis

Stefan M. Palys 

Michael Vincent 

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584

 

SCHNEIDER & ONOFRY, PC

By: /s/ Timothy B. O’Connor [with permission] 

 Timothy B. O’Connor

365 East Coronado Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

 

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DGC Document 164 Filed 11/26/19 Page 4 of 5
5 

CORE/3505308.0002/156250350.1 

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on November 26, 2019, I caused the foregoing document to 

be filed electronically with the Clerk of Court through ECF; and that ECF will send an 

e-notice of the electronic filing to: 

Joshua W. Carden 

JOSHUA CARDEN LAW FIRM, P.C. 

16427 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 410 

Scottsdale, AZ 85254 

joshua@cardenlawfirm.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Timothy B. O’Connor, Esq. 

SCHNEIDER & ONOFRY, P.C. 

365 East Coronado Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

toconnor@soarizonalaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Robert Donat 

I hereby certify that on November 26, 2019, a courtesy copy was e-mailed to: 

Judge David G. Campbell 

United States District Court 

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 623 

401 West Washington Street, SPC 58 

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2161 

/s/ Joanne McClearn 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DGC Document 164 Filed 11/26/19 Page 5 of 5