CORE/3505308.0002/156255509.1 

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 

REFERENCE TO KRISTIN 

LISSON’S TERMINATION OR 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

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 adducing evidence that Kristin Lisson was 

terminated; and that she negotiated and entered into a settlement agreement 

with GPS Insight, LLC regarding her termination. Plaintiff may not offer 

Exhibits 95, 96, 101, 106, 112, 120, 129, 131, 132.

To summarize: this evidence is not relevant to any element of a claim or defense 

to be tried (Fed. R. Evid. (“Rule”) 402); it is an improper attempt to use a settlement 

agreement to establish liability (Rule 408); it is an impermissible use of “other acts” 

evidence (Rule 404(b)); and merely seeks to confuse the issues the jury must resolve and 

inflame the jury against Defendants (Rule 403). The Court should preclude the evidence 

for all of these reasons. 

Plaintiff’s claims to be tried are: tortious interference with contract, defamation, 

false light, and intrusion upon seclusion. (Docs. 70 (first amended complaint) and 151 
2 

CORE/3505308.0002/156255509.1 

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

(summary judgment ruling)) The tortious interference claim alleges that Rob Donat 

tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s employment contract with GPS Insight by allegedly 

causing his termination on March 6, 2017; and the defamation/privacy claims allege 

Donat should be liable for statements made to others, or for supposedly obtaining a 

LexisNexis public records report about Plaintiff. (Doc. 70, ¶¶ 74-79 (tortious 

interference), ¶¶ 83-84 and 92-94 (defamation and false light), ¶¶ 106-07 (intrusion upon 

seclusion)) 

The evidence at issue in this motion relates to GPS Insight’s termination of 

Plaintiff’s girlfriend, Kristin Lisson. Three days after Plaintiff was terminated, Lisson, 

made a complaint to her supervisor, Jason Walker. (Doc. 151 at 9:26). A week after that, 

Lisson emailed Walker clarifying that her complaint was about sexual harassment 

because she had not included that in the March 9th email. (Id. at 9:27-10:1). GPS Insight 

terminated Lisson on March 19, 2017. After that, GPS Insight’s counsel and Lisson 

negotiated and entered into a settlement agreement.

 The evidence Defendants seek to preclude relates to Lisson’s termination, and 

negotiation and entry into a settlement agreement. Exhibit 95 is the settlement agreement 

itself. Exhibits 96, 120, and 131 are text messages, an email, and a call with GPS Insight’s 

counsel that Lisson surreptitiously recorded. Exhibit 112 is a litigation hold letter to 

Lisson from counsel who negotiated her settlement agreement. Exhibits 101 and 106 are 

texts between Lisson and Donat regarding her termination/settlement, and Exhibit 129 

contains texts between Lisson and Jason Walker regarding her termination. Exhibit 132 

is an audio recording third-party witness Robert Dennis secretly made with a co-worker 

in which he tried to goad the co-worker into making statements about Lisson’s 

termination. Plaintiff lists witness and issues relating to these same events. See, e.g., 

Pretrial Order §§ (D)(1)(g) (referencing Lisson’s termination after she complained) and 

(E)(b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) (each listed to testify about “the retaliation against Mr. Thacker 

and Ms. Lisson for objecting to the sexual harassment”). 
3 

CORE/3505308.0002/156255509.1 

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

Simply put: Lisson’s termination and later settlement have no relevance to 

Plaintiff’s earlier termination, nor his claims for defamation, false light, or intrusion upon 

seclusion. When conferring about the matter, Plaintiff’s counsel could not even explain 

what these events have to do with the claims to be tried. They should be excluded as 

irrelevant under Rule 402. At best, these events are an attempt to use Lisson’s termination 

to impermissibly inflame the jury and suggest a decision on an improper basis; or else to 

confuse the jury that there could somehow be liability on Plaintiff’s claims if GPS Insight 

supposedly wronged Ms. Lisson. Such evidence should be excluded under Rule 403. 

Worse, the use of the settlement agreement is an invitation for the jury to conclude that 

GPS Insight/Donat must have been liable for its acts regarding Lisson, in violation of 

Rule 408, from which Plaintiff hopes the jury would conclude it must also be liable for 

Donat’s alleged acts concerning Plaintiff, in violation of Rule 404(b). 

There is no proper use for this evidence. The Court should exclude it. 

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
4 

CORE/3505308.0002/156255509.1 

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 will be 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