Bell v. The Boeing Co.

1

ANDREW BELL and BECKY BELL, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant.

No. 20-CV-01716-LK

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

May 20, 2022

ORDER ON PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND REGARDING PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER

Lauren King United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on the parties' motions in limine, Dkt. Nos. 53-54, and the parties' “Joint Pretrial Statement, ” Dkt. No. 59.

After review of the record, the Court grants in part, denies in part, and defers in part the parties' motions in limine. The following rulings may be revisited during trial if necessary.

The Court also orders the parties to file a revised Proposed Pretrial Order by May 25, 2022, for the reasons discussed below.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court has already provided a detailed factual background in its order on the parties' motions for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 51 at 1-16. It therefore declines to reproduce that summary here. Suffice it to say that only one issue remains in this case: whether Boeing's placement of Bell on unpaid medical leave was a reasonable accommodation. Id. at 22. The parties are scheduled to try this lone survivor before a jury on June 6, 2022. Dkt. No. 45 at 2.

II. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

The Court begins by setting forth a few guideposts. It then addresses the points on which the parties agree before resolving the disputed issues.

A. Legal Standard

Parties may move “to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). But the Court enjoys “wide discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, ” United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 54 (1984), and it may amend, renew, or reconsider its rulings in limine in response to developments at trial, Luce, 469 U.S. at 41-42.

The Court is generally guided by Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403. See Houserman v. Comtech Telecomms. Corp., 519 F.Supp.3d 863, 867 (W.D. Wash. 2021). The Court must first consider whether the evidence at issue “has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, ” and whether “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. If so, the evidence is relevant and therefore generally admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. But there are many exceptions to this general rule. The Court may, for example, exclude relevant evidence if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. Relevance and prejudice “are determined in the context of the facts and arguments in a particular case.” Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 387 (2008).

B. Uncontested Motions in Limine

The parties have submitted 15 agreed or uncontested motions in limine. They propose the following evidentiary limitations:

1. Neither party, nor any witness, will discuss or offer testimony about Bell's criminal history. Dkt. No. 54 at 2.

2. Neither party, nor any witness, will discuss or offer testimony about Bell's “past creditworthiness.” Dkt. No. 54 at 2.

3. Boeing Medical representatives will not offer expert opinions; however, they may testify about their personal knowledge and experience. Dkt. No. 54 at 2; Dkt. No. 56 at 2; see Fed.R.Evid. 602, 702.

4. Boeing will not refer to any portion of Bell's medical history that is unrelated to his reasonable accommodation claim. Dkt. No. 54 at 2; Dkt. No. 56 at 2.

5. Boeing will not engage in argument about what Bell might do with a jury award or describe Bell as “greedy”; “hitting the lottery”; “hitting the jackpot”; or any other similar characterization. Dkt. No. 54 at 2. Nor will Boeing engage in any argument expressing disdain for the civil justice system or invoking passion or prejudice against civil lawsuits. Id.

6. Counsel will provide the names of witnesses they intend to call the next trial day by the end of the immediately preceding trial day. Dkt. No. 54 at 2.

7. All non-party witnesses will be excluded from the courtroom before they are called to testify. Id.; see Fed.R.Evid. 615. However, Boeing's representative may appear in the courtroom throughout trial and may be called as a witness. Dkt. No. 56 at 2; see Fed.R.Evid. 615(b).

8. The parties are responsible for instructing Zoom witnesses that they may not use their phones or other devices to text message, email, call, or otherwise communicate with anyone during their sworn testimony. Dkt. No. 54 at 3.

9. Neither party will reference attorney fees or fee structures. Id.

10. Neither party will offer evidence, testimony, or argument regarding claims dismissed on summary judgment. Dkt. No. 53 at 7-8; Dkt. No. 54 at 3; Dkt. No. 58 at 2; see Dkt. No. 51.

11. Neither party will assert or argue in the presence of the jury that the other party failed to call or should have called a witness when that witness is equally available to both parties. Dkt. No. 54 at 3.

12. Neither party will mention the parties' motions in limine. Dkt. No. 54 at 3.

13. Bell will not offer evidence, testimony, or argument related to Boeing's financial resources or size as a basis for a jury award. Dkt. No. 54 at 3. However, evidence of this nature is permissible if Boeing argues that it could not afford to reasonably accommodate Bell's disability. Id.

14. Bell will not introduce social media posts made by Boeing employees, including Bill Watterson's social media posts, unless Boeing opens the door to introduction of such evidence. Dkt. No. 53 at 6; Dkt. No. 56 at 2; Dkt. No. 58 at 2.

15. Neither party will introduce evidence, testimony, or argument related to Bell's medical specials or medical expenses. Dkt. No. 54 at 4, 9; Dkt. No. 56 at 6.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement and their arguments regarding the legal basis for imposing the above evidentiary limitations, the Court grants their uncontested motions in limine. The Court further clarifies that non-exempt witnesses subject to recall will be required to exit the courtroom until called back or excused, while excused witnesses may exit or remain in the courtroom following their testimony at their election. Counsel must ensure that there are no prospective non-exempt witnesses in the courtroom during the testimony of another witness.

C. Boeing's Contested Motion in Limine: Internal Boeing Emails

Boeing seeks to exclude email correspondence between manufacturing managers “who were not involved in and did not have authority to make decisions regarding [Bell's] leave.” Dkt. No. 53 at 5. According to Boeing, these emails are irrelevant to Bell's reasonable accommodation claim. Id. Boeing does not specify exactly which emails it wishes to keep from the jury.

Bell contends that emails “surrounding Boeing's decision to place Mr. Bell on an unpaid medical leave . . . [are] admissible if [they are] probative of the facts in issue or show[] bias, discriminatory animus or motive.” Dkt. No. 58 at 3. But emails introduced to show “bias, motive, [or] discriminatory intent, ” id. at 4, are irrelevant to the sole issue going to trial: whether Boeing failed to reasonably accommodate Bell. See Dkt. No. 59 at 2; 6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 330.33 (7th ed.). And even if such emails are tangentially relevant, it is likely that their minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 403, 611(a). The Court will not allow Bell to backdoor evidence that relates to claims dismissed on summary judgment; indeed, such evidence would violate the parties' agreed motion in limine prohibiting evidence, testimony, or argument regarding claims dismissed on summary judgment. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 51 (dismissing Bell's discriminatory discharge, disparate treatment, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and declaratory judgment claims).

Boeing's motion in limine is granted to the extent that Bell seeks to introduce emails to show “bias, motive, [or] discriminatory intent.” The Court denies the remainder of this motion in limine without prejudice to Boeing reasserting objections to specific testimony or exhibits at trial. See Standing Order for All Civil Cases, p. 5, available at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/KingStandingOrderReCivilCases.pdf (“Parties are discouraged from filing motions in limine which do not identify specific evidence or exhibits to be excluded [or] which request relief at a high level of generality.”); Vincent v. Reyes, No. C19-00329-RMI, 2021 WL 4262289, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2021) (“courts are better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of evidence, instead of tackling the matter in a vacuum.”).

D. Bell's Contested Motions in Limine

1. Unemployment and Short-Term Disability Benefits

Bell first argues that any evidence of his “application for and/or receipt of unemployment benefits or short-term disability insurance benefits is inadmissible under the collateral source rule and under FRE 402 and 403.” Dkt. No. 54 at 4-5. Boeing counters that its short-term disability plan “is a self-funded payroll policy” and therefore not derived from a collateral source. Dkt. No. 56 at 3. This, according to Boeing, means that it may offer evidence of Bell's short-term disability benefits to offset damages. Id. Boeing also argues that although unemployment benefits may not be used to offset damages, such evidence is nevertheless admissible “to show whether [Bell] met his obligation to mitigate damages[.]” Id.

“The...