Opinion
3:20-cv-06028-JHC
05-02-2023
KIM SNELL, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, JUDITH A. FITZGERALD and UNA I. WILEY, Defendants.
ORDER RE: STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE
JOHN H. CHUN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' Motions in Limine. Dkt. # 47.Having considered the motions and the opposition thereto, the Court rules as follows:
No reply papers are to be filed in support of motions in limine. LCR 7(d)(4). Although the motions are noted for May 5, 2023, they are fully briefed, and the Court may now rule on them.
DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Granted
Denied
Reserved
A.
Evidence of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation allegations, claims or cases involving persons other than plaintiff
Without prejudice.
B.
Opinions of the plaintiff or lay witnesses as to the motives of others where such witnesses were not involved in the acts or decisions that plaintiff alleges were retaliatory
In part - to the extent the witness does not have personal knowledge of the matter.
Without prejudice.
C.
Plaintiff's Opinion of Their Own Qualifications
D.
Plaintiff from using Whistleblower Complaint made against her as evidence of discrimination or retaliation.
In full.
E.
Testimony or argument regarding alleged wrongful or retaliatory acts by either defendant toward individuals other than plaintiff
Without prejudice.
F.
Evidence supporting theories of law Ms. Snell voluntarily dismissed as they are irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, or inadmissible character evidence.
In part
Without prejudice.
G.
Arguments and inferences outside the record for a punitive result or for political effect
In full.
In part - to the extent evidence is relevant to an existing claim.
H.
Testimony or arguments regarding the financial conditions of the parties or implying that the jury should consider the relative resources of the parties
In full.