Opinion ID: 423583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of the Human Relations Department Letter

Text: 7 During a pretrial hearing, Coleman's attorney made an offer of all the exhibits he intended to introduce at trial. One of these exhibits was the Omaha Human Relations Department Letter. The letter included a summary of Coleman's situation and a review of applicable legal principles. The letter concluded that Coleman had been forcibly retired in violation of the ADEA and recommended to the City that he be rehired. The City objected to the letter on relevancy grounds. Coleman argued that the letter was admissible as an official business record and as an admission. The district court sustained the objection, apparently on the ground that the letter was nothing more than a recommendation and thus was not binding on the City. There was no mention made of the letter's relevance to mitigation of damages. At trial Coleman's attorney attempted to question Coleman about the letter. The following exchange took place out of the hearing of the jury: 8 MR. CHRISTIAN [Coleman's attorney]: I think this is important, Your Honor, because Mr. Coleman tells me that if we knew he would retire under the policy of the City of Omaha, Chief Andersen, and-- 9 MR. FELLOWS [Omaha's attorney]: Speak quieter, please. 10 THE COURT: Yes, please speak quietly. 11 MR. CHRISTIAN: --the Human Relations Department told him that he should be reinstated. Now, there is going to be a question here as they have raised the issue that my client did not seek any employment, and I want the Court to understand that my client received confusing signals from the City of Omaha. He felt-- 12 THE COURT: Oh, I see. This runs to the issue of damages? 13 MR. CHRISTIAN: Right. 14 THE COURT: In other words, he is required by law to mitigate his damages and this apparently runs to the issue of whether he actively sought other employment in mitigation of his damages and it probably would, in fact, be relevant for that purpose, and it would seem to me to be relevant and I would be amenable to instruct the jury at the proper time that it is admissible for that purpose. It is being offered only for that purpose? 15 MR. CHRISTIAN: That is correct. 16 THE COURT: If you will remind me to do so at the proper time, I will give them an instruction that it is admissible and I think it probably--do you disagree that it is? 17 MR. FELLOWS: No. That was the question. I had not given any thought to the idea of personal damages and I am in concurrence with that. 18 THE COURT: All right. Fine. 19 MR. FELLOWS: For that limited purpose. 20 THE COURT: All right. 21 This colloquy makes it clear that a reason not previously considered by the court for the relevance of the letter had been presented and partially accepted by the court. The court allowed limited examination of Coleman on the contents of the letter. 3 However, Coleman's attorney did not again offer the letter itself as an exhibit. 22 Coleman now argues that the district court's initial refusal to admit the letter was error. The court's initial refusal to admit the letter did not take into account its relevance to the mitigation issue because that argument was not presented and the district court cannot be found to have erred by failing to perceive on its own the potential relevance of the evidence. It was Coleman's responsibility to make clear the use to which he would put the evidence. Caisson Corp. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 622 F.2d 672, 680-81 (3d Cir.1980); United States v. Anderson, 618 F.2d 487, 491 (8th Cir.1980); Independent Iron Works, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 322 F.2d 656, 674 (9th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922, 84 S.Ct. 267, 11 L.Ed.2d 165 (1963); see Fed.R.Evid. 103. Further, during Coleman's testimony, the district court allowed examination of Coleman about the letter and upon request might have admitted the letter itself. Coleman made no such request. Again, the court was not responsible for seeing that all of Coleman's evidence was admitted or offered for admission. Coleman's oversight cannot be grounds for a reversal in his favor. 4