Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01469-SLR Document 42 Filed 10/30/2006 Paget of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Stanford L. Burris :
Plaintiff
: Civ. No. 04-1469-SLR
v. :
Richards Paving, Inc.
Defendant
DEFENDANT RICHARDS PAVING, INC.,’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE TESTIMONY AND
INTRODUCTION OF THE DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S
NOTICE OF REASONABLE CAUSE FINDING
Defendant Richards Paving, Inc., (hereafter referred to as "Richards Paving”)
hereby moves this Court to enter an order granting its Motion in Limine to Preclude the
testimony and introduction of the Delaware Department of Labor’s Notice of Reasonable
Cause Finding.
1. On or about, April 30, 2004, the Delaware Department of Labor (hereafter the
DDOL) issued a Notice of Reasonable Cause Finding and Right to Sue Letter to
plaintiff
2. It is anticipated that plaintiff will attempt to elicit testimony about the Notice of
Reasonable Cause Finding and Right to Sue letter, or alternatively, he will attempt
to introduce the documents as evidence.
3. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (hereafter F.R.E.), rule 403, relevant
I evidence may be excluded if its probative value, substantially outweighs the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury.

Case 1:04-cv-01469-SLR Document 42 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 2 of 4
4. As the District Court for the Northern District of Iowa stated, "The Court must
‘ensure that unfair prejudice does not result from a conclusion based on cursory A
EEOC review of the very facts examined in depth at trial."’ Phan v. Trinity
Regional Hospital, 3. F.Supp.2d 1014, 1017 (N.D. Iowa 1998), (citing E_@_s_xp
Dick Smith Ford, Inc., 856 F.2d 1097, 1105 (8m Cir. 1998).
5. In this particular case, any testimony or introduction of the DDOL’s Notice of
Reasonable Cause Finding and Right to Sue letter is highly prejudicial to the
defendant.
6. The fact that the DDOL determined that their was reasonable cause to believe that
a violation had occurred should not be admissible in this case because it would
raise a negative inference to the jury that plaintiffs claims against Richards
Paving must be correct if the DDOL, determined that their was reasonable cause
to believe a violation had occurred.
7. .In Naeem v. McKesson Drug Company, 2001 WL 1141803 (N.D. Ill.) (Exhibit
A), the district court for the Northern District of Illinois precluded defendant form
introducing the EEOC’s Dismissal/Right to Sue letter. In , the EEOC
dismissed plaintiffs claim. The plaintiff filed a motion in limine to preclude the
introduction of the Right to Sue letter. The court granted the motion in lirrrine
because the introduction of the Right to Sue letter would be very prejudicial to the
plaintiff
8. Similarly, in this case, the introduction of the Notice of Reasonable Cause Finding
would be severely prejudicial to Richards Paving.

Case 1:04-cv-01469-SLR Document 42 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 3 of 4
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Richards Paving respectfully
requests that this Court grant defendant’s Motion in Limine. _
ELZUF ON AUSTIN REARDON
TARLOV & MON
Matthew P. Donelson, ID #4243
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1700
P.O. Box 1630
Wilmington, DE 19899-1630
(302) 428~3181
Attorney for Defendant
Richards Paving, Inc.
Dated: October 30, 2006

Case 1:04-cv-01469-SLR Document 42 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Stanford L. Burris :
Piaimirr, 2
: Civ. N0. 04-1469-SLR
v. :
Richards Paving, Inc.
Defendant
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of , 2006, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Richards Paving, Inc., s’ Motion in Liniine to preclude the
testimony or introduction of plaintiffs Notice of Reasonable Cause Finding and Right to
Sue letter is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
J.