Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harris v. Crst Van Expedited, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division

January 20, 2015

ARTHUR HARRIS, Plaintiff,
v.
CRST VAN EXPEDITED, INC., Defendant.

ORDER

LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The matters before the court are Defendant CRST Van Expedited, Inc.'s ("CRST") Motion in Limine ("CRST Motion") (docket no. 34) and Plaintiff Arthur Harris's Motion in Limine ("Harris Motion") (docket no. 35).

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 17, 2014, Harris filed an Amended Complaint (docket no. 10) alleging that CRST interfered with Harris's Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") leave rights (Count 1), wrongfully discharged him in violation of Iowa public policy (Count 2), discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (Count 3) and discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act (Count 4). On November 26, 2014, the court granted summary judgment in favor of CRST on Count 2. See November 26, 2014 Order (docket no. 32). On December 4, 2014, CRST filed the CRST Motion. Also on December 4, 2014, Harris filed the Harris Motion. On December 11, 2014, CRST filed a Resistance to the Harris Motion (docket no. 36) and Harris filed a Resistance to the CRST Motion (docket no. 37). On December 15, 2014, CRST filed a Reply to the Resistance to the CRST Motion ("CRST Reply") (docket no. 44). On December 17, 2014, Harris filed a Reply to the Resistance to the Harris Motion ("Harris Reply") (docket no. 46). On December 18, 2014, the court held a Final Pretrial Conference ("Hearing") and heard arguments on the Motions. See December 18, 2014 Minute Entry (docket no. 47). The Motions are fully submitted and ready for decision.

III. ANALYSIS

The court will first address the CRST Motion and then will address the Harris Motion.

A. CRST Motion

In the CRST Motion, CRST seeks to prevent Harris from offering evidence regarding:

(1) That [CRST] has been involved in other lawsuits as plaintiff, defendant prior or subsequent to this lawsuit.
(2) That [CRST] has been a party to other unrelated claims or settlements made either prior or subsequent to this lawsuit, or the amount sought or paid therein.
(3) That [CRST] has not called to testify at trial any witness equally available to [Harris] in this action.
(4) The number of attorneys or personnel practicing in the law firm representing [CRST] or the amount of resources available to conduct the investigation and defense of this case.
(5) The financial condition of [CRST], including any reference to information which would tend to suggest to the jury that [CRST] is wealthy' and/or powerful' including information and documents relating to [CRST]'s financial statements and income tax returns.
(6) Reference to any corporations to which [CRST] is related as a parent, subsidiary or sister corporation, which are not parties to this lawsuit.
(7) Any attempts or efforts by [CRST] to settle or any settlement discussions or negotiations entered into by [CRST], or any conduct of [CRST] during such negotiations.
(8) Any statements or reports made or drafted by any person not present to testify or not subject to cross-examination on the contents of such statement or report.
(9) Any suggestion to the jury, by argument or otherwise, what would have been the testimony of any witness not actually called to testify.
(10) Any demands or requests before the jury for items contained in the files of [CRST] which have not been the subject of discovery in this case.
(11) Opinions, statements, or testimony by any expert witness for [Harris] other than those disclosed in discovery.
(12) Any exhibit or witness not previously disclosed to [CRST] through [Harris's] discovery responses in this matter.

CRST Motion at 2-3 (formatting omitted). The court will address each of CRST's requests in turn.

1. Involvement in other lawsuits

Harris does not resist this portion of the CRST Motion. Accordingly, the court shall grant this portion of the CRST Motion.

2. Other unrelated claims or settlements

Harris does not resist this portion of the CRST Motion. Accordingly, the court shall grant this portion of the CRST Motion.

3. Not calling witnesses to testify

CRST requests that the court bar Harris from referencing the fact that CRST "has not called to testify at trial any witness equally available to [Harris]" as such evidence would confuse the issues, mislead the jury and unduly prejudice CRST. Brief in Support of the CRST Motion (docket no. 34-1) at 2. Harris argues that there is nothing inherently improper about referencing individuals who have not been called to testify and that whether to make such references is a matter of strategy. The court finds that a party's decision ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.