Trial preparation
Author | Aaron B. Maduff |
Pages | 389-410 |
TRIAL PREPARATION
17-1 LITIGATING SEXUAL HARASSMENT & SEX DISCRIMINATION CASES §17.1
CHAPTER 17: TRIAL PREPARATION
§17.1 TASK: DRAFT MOTIONS IN LIMINE
§17.1.1 WHAT AND WHY
Motions in limine seek to limit trial testimony or the introduction of certain evidence. They may be used to:
• Eliminate issues and/or preclude admission of facts at trial.
• Exclude inadmissible, irrelevant or prejudicial evidence (documentary or testimonial) at trial.
• Avoid prejudicing the jury through evidentiary objections at trial.
• Alert the judge to evidentiary issues that may arise, even if the motion is denied or stayed until trial.
• Educate the trial judge and persuade him to see the case in the light most favorable to your client.
• Encourage a settlement before or during trial.
§17.1.2 WHEN
Motions in limine are usually decided on the eve of trial. Check your local rules or the court’s scheduling
Practice Note: If you are in federal court and the judge’s website does not set a schedule for filing
motions in limine, call up the judge’s minute clerk and inquire as to the judge’s practice.
§17.1.3 HOW
§17.1.3.1 Review Federal Rules of Evidence
• Rule 104 provides that the court must decide preliminary questions of the admissibility of evidence, a person’s
-
by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue
about a person’s reputation or by opinion testimony.
motion and the court conducts a hearing in camera.
Practice Note: Review state rules of evidence
for limiting or excluding evidence at trial. See
See Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co
TRIAL PREPARATION
§17 .1 LITIGATING SEXUAL HARASSMENT & SEX DISCRIMINATION CASES 17-2
§17.1.3.2 Consider Grounds for Motion
§17.1.3.2.1 “Me Too” Evidence
discrimination). Janopoulos v. Harvey L. Walner & Assoc.
Rauh v. Coyne
§17.1.3.2.2 Incidents of Which Plaintiff Had No Knowledge
Biggs v. Nicewonger Co.
Campbell v. Board of
Regents
§17.1.3.2.3 Harasser’s Sexual or Personal History
generally Griswold v. Connecticut
also Boler v. Superior Court
Hennessy v. Penril Datacomm Networks
§17.1.3.2.4 Plaintiff’s Personal History
Marshall v. Nelson Elec., Unit of Gen.
Signal
Bigoni v.
Pay ‘N Pak Stores, Inc.
§17.1.3.2.5 Events Before Statute of Limitations Period
-
itations period, as not relevant. United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans
Sims v. Mulcahy
Blesedell v. Mobil Oil Co.
§17.1.3.2.6 Expert Testimony
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phar-
maceuticals
to act as gatekeeper for such evidence).
§17.1.3.2.7 Medical/Psychological History
Hodges
v. Keane
To continue reading
Request your trial