Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Clyde

United States District Court, District of Colorado

March 12, 2015

ANDREA SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
T.W. CLYDE, O.D., P.C., d/b/a PIKES PEAK EYE CARE, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE

William J. Martínez United States District Judge

Plaintiff Andrea Smith (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against her former employer, Tom W. Clyde, O.D., P.C., doing business as Pikes Peak Eye Care (“Defendant”), for discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is set for a four-day jury trial commencing on Monday, April 6, 2015, with the Final Trial Preparation Conference set for March 20, 2015. (ECF No. 40.) This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Motions in Limine (“Motions”). (ECF Nos. 46 & 49.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Defendant’s Motion is denied in its entirety.

I. ANALYSIS

The parties’ Motions seek evidentiary rulings on the following evidence prior to trial: (1) Plaintiff’s 2003 convictions for felony drug possession, theft, and criminal impersonation; (2) additional evidence to prove stipulated facts, beyond the stated facts contained in the Final Pretrial Order; (3) the testimony of Lana Zaller and Keith Sanchez; (4) evidence of Plaintiff’s use of Facebook; (5) the testimony of Laura Haynes; and (6) evidence of Plaintiff’s list of prescription medications. (ECF Nos. 46 & 49.) The Court will discuss each category of evidence in turn.

A. Plaintiff’s Prior Convictions

Both parties’ Motions seek a ruling as to Plaintiff’s convictions for felony drug possession, theft, and criminal impersonation; Plaintiff moves to exclude such evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b), while Defendant moves to allow its introduction under the same rule. (ECF Nos. 46 at 2-5; 49 at 2-3.)

Federal Rule of Evidence 609 governs when and how a witness’s prior conviction may be used at trial:

(a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness’s character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:
(1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:
(A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; and
(B) must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and
(2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving-or the witness’s admitting-a dishonest act or false statement.
(b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.