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.

Moore v. Holder

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

November 13, 2014

CYNTHIA E. MOORE, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge.

Upon review of the record and following the final pretrial conference in this case held on the record on November 12, 2014, and for the reasons stated by the Court thereat, the Court sets forth its rulings on the parties' motions in limine and objections to pretrial materials, as follows:

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 56)

1. The opinion testimony of any witness that Defendant did not discriminate against Plaintiff on account of her race: DENIED as moot having been resolved by the parties.

2. The EEOC's Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law against Plaintiff following an administrative hearing on her claim of race discrimination: DENIED as moot having been resolved by the parties. Defendant will not offer the written EEOC decision or fact of EEOC determination.

3. Evidence concerning the general note-taking skills of Nancy Gargula: DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Defendant will be permitted to offer evidence that Gargula had the habit of taking detailed notes, but will not be permitted to offer evidence of the quality of her notes, such as that they were accurate, meticulous, or complete.

4. Any evidence faulting Plaintiff for not expressing interest in or seeking training for the position of Senior Bankruptcy Analyst prior to the date it was posted: GRANTED without prejudice, subject to reconsideration if such evidence proves relevant as the evidence at trial comes in.

Plaintiff's Second Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 59)

Testimony of Rodney Clark, Barbara Dorsey, and Peter Lumaghi: DENIED as moot in part, having been resolved by the parties as to Clark and Lumaghi who will not be called by Defendant. Ruling RESERVED as to Dorsey pending further information by counsel.

Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Exhibits (Doc. No. 62)

OVERRULED as moot, as to Exhibits A, D, JJ, and KK, as the parties agreed to use the transcripts only for impeachment, and as to Y, which Plaintiff has withdrawn. Ruling RESERVED as to Exhibits C, H, I, J, and K, consisting of handwritten notes by Gargula.

Defendant's Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 58)

1. Personnel records regarding Plaintiff from years before the selection at issue - Plaintiff's trial Exhibits 10 (2005 performance appraisal), 11 (2003 performance appraisal), and 12 (1995 memo from Peter Lumachi recommending Plaintiff for promotion): DENIED as to Exhibits 10 and 11 as these reflect relevant evidence of Plaintiff's job performance. Ruling RESERVED with respect to Exhibit 12, pending Plaintiff laying a proper foundation showing the circumstances under which the memo was written.

2. Hand-written notations on Plaintiff's trial Exhibit 55 (Promotion/Candidate List): DENIED as moot, having been resolved by the parties. Plaintiff will redact ...


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.