Carbajal v. Hayes Management Services, Inc., No. 4:2019cv00287 - Document 82 (D. Idaho 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Defendants motion in limine (Dkt. 71 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO MARIA ANGELICA CARBAJAL, Case No. 4:19-cv-00287-BLW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. HAYES MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Admit the Idaho Human Rights Commission’s (IHRC’s) determination regarding Plaintiff’s discrimination claim. (Dkt. 71.) The Court will deny the motion without prejudice. Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq., and the Idaho Human Rights Act, Idaho Code § 67-5901, et seq. Prior to the lawsuit, Plaintiff had filed a charge of discrimination with the IHRC and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The IHRC issued its determination regarding Carbajal’s allegations MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 of sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge on April 26, 2019, and simultaneously issued notice of her right to sue. In her amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the IHRC determination is inadmissible. In response, Defendants have filed the pending motion in limine seeking a determination by this court that the IHRC determination is admissible as evidence in this case. The Court finds such a determination at this stage of the litigation would be premature. “A party may bring a motion in limine to address the admissibility of evidence to be introduced at trial.” Bratton v. Shinette, No. 2:16-CV-1084-EFB P, 2018 WL 4929736, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2018). Because the power to rule on motions in limine derives from the “inherent power to manage the course of trials,” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 44 n.4 (1984), the Court has broad discretion to decide when to rule on motions in limine to best manage the course of trial. However, generally, ruling on motions in limine “should be deferred until shortly before trial to ensure that the evidence may be weighed in proper context.” Bratton, 2018 WL 4929736, at *5. Here, discovery has not been completed. No dispositive motions are pending before the Court. And, trial is not imminent. Instead, Defendants state that they are bringing the motion on the ground that Plaintiff asserted in the amended complaint that the IHRC determination is inadmissible. This assertion in the complaint is MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 insufficient to render the issue of admissibility of the IHRC determination ripe. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion in limine (Dkt. 71) is DENIED. DATED: July 1, 2021 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
