Free Order on Motion in Limine - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O4—cv-00320-SLR Document 78 Filed O2/06/2008 Page 1 of 3
IN THE LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MELVERT WASHINGTON, JR., )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 04-320-SLR
AUTOZONER, INC., g
Defendant. g
O R D E R
At Wilmington this 6th day of February, 2008, having reviewed the pending
motions Q and the papers submitted in connection therewith;
IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion Q (D.|. 58) is granted in part and
denied in part, as follows:
1. The motion is denied with respect to exhibits 6, 8, 11, 13-36 and 39. It cannot
be disputed that the same evidence may support multiple claims for relief; the fact that
some claims for relief have been dismissed does not diminish the relevance ofthe
evidence vis—a-vis remaining claims. In the case at bar, although plaintiff is precluded
from seeking relief on his failure to promote claim, I find that the above—identified
exhibits are relevant as well to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim, for which
plaintiff has the burden to prove that the alleged racial discrimination was intentional
and severe or pervasive. Moreover, the events leading to the May 2002 charge of

Case 1:O4—cv-OO320—SLR Document 78 Filed O2/06/2008 Page 2 of 3
discrimination, the conduct upon which the retaliation claim is based, constitute relevant
background information. There is no undue prejudice}
2. The motion is granted with respect to exhibits 48-52, 55-56, 58-59 and 61, as
I routinely preclude the admission of documents related to administrative hearings?
3. The motion is granted with respect to exhibits 72, 73, 74, 75 and 78, as they
appear to be specifically related to the failure to promote claim and have no broader
relevance?
4. The remainder of the motion, as it relates to the expert testimony of Dr. Black,
will be discussed at the pretrial conference. On the one hand, any argument based on
is untimely and will be denied.4 On the other hand, it is not clear to me whether
Dr. BIack’s testimony will be helpful to the jury, based on the remaining claims to be
tried.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion Q @r§ (D.I. 60) is granted.
The conviction at issue is not admissible evidence based on the following: (1) it was a
conviction by court martial; (2) no term of imprisonment was imposed; (3) the elements
‘I note that, in my opinion denying summary judgment, I relied on the very
evidence that defendant is trying to preclude. Not surprisingly, then, I find no support
for defendant’s motion. Neither do I find that plaintiff is asserting a new claim of racial
harassment; therefore, there is no issue relating to exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
2These documents, of course, may be used to refresh recollection or for
impeachment; however, such uses do not generally lead to admission of the document.
3The court may reconsider this holding as it relates to the wage information
contained within these exhibits, consistent with the discussion identified in paragraph 4.
"In this regard, plaintiffs motion to strike (D.I. 66) is granted.
2

Case 1:O4—cv-00320-SLR Document 78 Filed O2/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
of the crime did not involve proof of an act of dishonesty; and (4) the
conviction is 25 years old.
United States §istrict Judge
3

Case 1:04-cv-00320-SLR

Document 78

Filed 02/06/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00320-SLR

Document 78

Filed 02/06/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00320-SLR

Document 78

Filed 02/06/2008

Page 3 of 3