Opinion
No. 08 C 458.
November 30, 2009
MEMORANDUM ORDER
As part of the post-Final-Pretrial-Order preparation of the parties for trial, defendant Serumido, Ltd. ("Serumido") has moved in limine to exclude plaintiff Fortuna Grassano ("Grassano") Ex. 1, an email exchange between counsel for the parties. Serumido's counsel seeks to invoke Fed.R.Evid. ("Rule") 408 as the predicate for the exclusion of that exhibit. This Court has reviewed Serumido's motion in limine, and it denies the requested exclusion.
To that end this Court has prepared a proposed redaction of the email exchange (comprising a July 31, 2007 email from Grassano's lawyer to Serumido's lawyer and an August 3, 2007 response from Serumido's counsel), and it attaches a copy of the redacted document to this memorandum order as its Ex. 1. As so redacted, nothing in the statement by Serumido's counsel fits the exclusions set out in Rule 408:
Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible.
By contrast, the admission set out in the response by Serumido's counsel is a straightforward acknowledgment that the decision to terminate Grassano's employment was Serumido's as she has claimed:
For his part, Mr. Goldsmith had already reached the decision to terminate Ms. Grassano effective when the restaurant took its holiday break.
And that statement is plainly admissible as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(D).
In sum, Serumido's motion in limine is denied. This Court will, however, entertain input from counsel for the parties as to the scope of the proposed redaction — as to whether the attached suggested version needs any tweaking.