Opinion
No. 98 C 4603.
March 18, 2002
RULINGS ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE
The following rulings are entered on the defendants' motions in limine.
A. Motion in limine to exclude evidence of alleged harassment prior to plaintiff's employment at Acco. Granted.
Plaintiff's version of the facts, as set out in the court's ruling on defendant's motion for summary judgment is "that [defendant David] Cohrs began sexually harassing her in March, 1997." Mem. Opin. and Order of January 11, 2001. This first incident occurred at Acco Brands, Inc (ACCO). Thus, there is nothing in the case suggesting that harassment occurred while plaintiff was employed at Fortune Brands, Inc. In response to the motion in limine, plaintiff proffers no particular evidence but submits generally that she should be allowed to offer background evidence of earlier harassment. This is insufficient to establish relevance to any fact in issue.
B. Motion in limine to exclude evidence of remarks that occurred outside of plaintiff's presence. Granted in part; denied without prejudice in part.
Defendant anticipates that plaintiff will introduce evidence of harassment and improper activity that occurred at ACCO but outside of plaintiff's presence. Plaintiff responds that she is permitted to offer evidence of admissions and other matters that come within exceptions to the rule excluding hearsay. That plaintiff was not present at some event does not necessarily mean that evidence of it is excluded. That depends on whether it the event is relevant to issues in this case and can be established through admissible evidence. That said, any attempt by plaintiff to offer letters such as those attached as Exhibit 1 or to repeat "second hand remarks" made by persons who do not speak for ACCO will not be permitted because they do not come within any exception to the hearsay rule. Thus, this motion is denied without prejudice to renewal should plaintiff attempt to offer irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible evidence of an event that occurred outside of plaintiff's presence.
C. Motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding any medical, psychological or therapeutic damages. Granted without objection.
D. Motion in limine to exclude allegations that defendants destroyed or sabotaged plaintiff's records. Granted in part, denied in part.
Plaintiff wishes to testify that she made notes on her computer hard drive concerning sexual harassment but that the information was destroyed by the Information Systems group during a regular maintenance operation. This testimony is relevant to plaintiff's credibility to address a possibility that the jury would wonder why she did not have any notes documenting her experiences. Plaintiff may not testify or indicate that she believes ACCO purposefully destroyed the information or sabotaged her effort to make a record of the harassment.
E. Motion in limine to exclude references to the term "hostile environment." Granted.
Plaintiff may testify as to what she observed and experienced, how she felt, and the like. It is not her province to describe the environment as hostile or abusive because that is an ultimate question of fact for the jury to decide.
F. Motion in limine to exclude testimony by Marilee Fraser of her alleged harassment. Granted.
The court cannot discern from plaintiff's response to the motion that Marilee Fraser will testify that she was harassed by the same perpretator as was plaintiff or that Ms. Fraser's experience at Fortune Brands has any relevance to this case. To the extent plaintiff wants to be able to call Ms. Fraser to rebut testimony that witness Norm Wesley may give, this ruling does not bar such testimony, if plaintiff can show that the testimony relevant and probative.
G. Motion in limine to prohibit Brita Theard from testifying at trial. Granted without objection.