Boshea v. Compass Mktg.

1

DAVID J. BOSHEA, Plaintiff. v. COMPASS MARKETING, INC., Defendant.

CIVIL No. ELH-21-00309

United States District Court, D. Maryland

October 26, 2023

MEMORANDUM

Ellen Lipton Hollander United States District Judge

This case concerns a dispute between plaintiff David Boshea and defendant Compass Marketing, Inc. (“Compass”) with respect to an alleged severance agreement. Compass and its CEO, John White, dispute the validity of the agreement and contend that White's signature on the severance agreement was forged.

The case is scheduled to proceed to a jury trial beginning on October 30, 2023. Accordingly, the Court held a pretrial conference on October 13, 2023.

At the pretrial conference, the Court addressed various trial-related matters with counsel and reviewed portions of the parties' proposed “Joint Pretrial Order,” filed on June 6, 2023. ECF 173 (“PTO”). Of relevance here, on page fourteen of the PTO, counsel for defendant asked the Court to take judicial notice with respect to a ruling made by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on March 23, 2023, in a defamation case involving persons who are not parties to this case. The ruling concerned George White and Michael White, relatives of John White, in the case of George White v. Ronald Bateman, Case C-02-cv-21-000778.

In particular, ECF 173 at 14, ¶ 1 states: “Compass Marketing asks that the Court take judicial notice that, on March 23, 2023, George White and Michael White, who were Compass Marketing's network administrators, were found by the Circuit Court of Maryland for Anne Arundel County to have accessed the company's network after their employment ended.” The PTO does not contain any objection by plaintiff to the request. However, at the pretrial conference, plaintiff lodged an objection. Therefore, the Court asked defense counsel to submit a copy of the transcript of the State court proceedings held on March 23, 2023.

On October 18, 2023, defendant filed a “Request for Judicial Notice” (ECF 196, the “Motion”). In the Motion, Compass again asked the Court to “take judicial notice that, on March 23, 2023, George White and Michael White, who were Compass Marketing's network administrators, were found by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to have accessed the company's network after their employment [with Compass had] ended.” Id. ¶ 2 (citation omitted). The Motion is supported by the requested transcript of proceedings in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on March 23, 2023. See ECF 196-1.

Also on October 18, 2023, the parties filed an Amended Joint Pretrial Order. ECF 195 (“Amended PTO”). In the Amended PTO, Compass renewed its request that “the Court take judicial notice that the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County made a finding that ‘immediately following his resignation [from Compass Marketing] George White and Michael [White] still had access to the [Compass Marketing] network.'” Id. at 13 (quoting transcript ECF 196-1 at 14) (alterations in ECF 196). But, unlike ECF 173, ECF 195 notes the objection of the plaintiff. Id. at 13 n.5.

On October 19, 2023, plaintiff filed a “Response to Compass Marketing, Inc.'s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief and Request That the Court Take Judicial Notice.” ECF 199. He argues, inter alia, that it would be inappropriate for the Court to take judicial notice under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”). Id. ¶ 3. Boshea explains that the State case involved a claim of defamation. Id. ¶ 2. And, he disputes the defendant's construction of the State court's comment, asserting, id. ¶ 6: “The context of the statement in the proceedings may be read as the court finding that George White did not meet his burden of showing that Ronald Bateman defamed him.”

Additionally Boshea argues that Compass has had seven years to prove that George and Michael White had access to the Compass network (id. ¶ 7); the transcript statement is mere “dicta” (id. ¶ 8); and “[t]aking judicial notice would unfairly prejudice David Boshea by allowing the finding, which is not central to the issue of whether David Boshea is entitled to receive a severance payment, to overshadow the case.” Id. ¶ 10. Further, plaintiff argues that “George White is not a material witness in these proceedings” (id. ¶ 12; see id. ¶ 13) and that “judicial notice of Michael White's purported access to Compass' records” would be “completely unreliable and prejudicial.” Id. ¶ 14; see id. ¶¶ 15, 16.

No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny the Motion.

I. Procedural Background

Defendant's Motion relates to an evidentiary issue at trial. Therefore, I will construe it as a motion in limine.

By Order of August 9, 2022 (ECF 115), the Court set a deadline of November 18, 2022, for the filing of motions in limine. And, both sides timely filed motions in limine. See ECF 119, ECF 120, ECF 121, ECF 122, ECF 124, and ECF 125. Thereafter, on March 10, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the motions in limine. ECF 158. And, the Court resolved the motions by Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 31, 2023. ECF 160, ECF 161.

At that time, trial was set to begin on July 31, 2023. ECF 145. And, on June 6, 2023, in anticipation of that trial, and as required by the Court, the parties filed, inter alia, the PTO. ECF 173. However, following the Court's telephone conferences with counsel on June 13, 2023, and June 22, 2023 (see Docket), and by Order of June 23, 2023 (ECF 178), the Court rescheduled the trial date to October 30, 2023. In addition, the Court rescheduled the pretrial conference for October 13, 2023. See id.

On October 18, 2023 just twelve days before trial defendant filed its Motion. ECF 196. Understandably, Compass did not raise the matter of judicial notice when motions in limine were due, because the State court ruling had not yet occurred. However, the ruling in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County was made months ago on March 23, 2023.

Notably, the first mention of the matter at issue appears on page fourteen of the PTO, filed on June 6, 2023. ECF 173. As indicated, the PTO does not include an objection by plaintiff. In any event, because the trial was postponed as of June 23, 2023, there was no need for the Court to review ECF 173 with counsel at that time. Compass has not explained its delay in presenting the Motion to the Court on October 18, 2023.

II. Discussion

A. Motions in Limine

As indicated, the defendant's request is, in effect, a motion in limine. “A motion in limine is a request for guidance by the court regarding an evidentiary question.” United States v. Luce, 713 F.2d 1236, 1239 (6th Cir. 1983), aff'd, 469 U.S. 38 (1984). The purpose of a motion in limine is “‘to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence.'” United States v. Slagle, SAG-15-392, 2015 WL 5897740, at *1 (D. Md. Oct. 6, 2015) (quoting Banque Hypothecaire Du Canton De Geneve v. Union Mines, Inc., 652 F.Supp. 1400, 1401 (D. Md. 1987)).

Notably, “motions in limine are meant ‘to streamline the case for trial and to provide guidance to counsel [and the parties] regarding evidentiary issues.'” Osei v. Univ. of Maryland Univ. Coll., 202 F.Supp.3d 471, 479 n.5 (D. Md. 2016) (quoting Adams v. NVR Homes, Inc., 141 F.Supp.2d 554, 558 (D. Md. 2001)), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 710 Fed.Appx. 593 (4th Cir. 2018). Such motions help to streamline a case, because they enable “‘a court to rule in advance on the admissibility of documentary or testimonial evidence and thus expedite and render efficient a subsequent trial.'” INSLAW, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed.Cl. 295, 303 (1996) (citation omitted); see Changzhou Kaidi Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Okin Am., Inc., 102 F.Supp.3d 740, 745 (D. Md. 2015) (motions in limine “are ‘designed to narrow the evidentiary issues for trial and to eliminate unnecessary trial interruptions'” (internal quotation omitted)).

However, evidentiary rulings prior to trial are generally preliminary or tentative, made in the discretion of the court, for the purpose of assisting in preparation for trial. Luce, 713 F.2d at 1239-40; see Adams, 141 F.Supp.2d at 558 (“A ruling on a motion in limine is no more than a preliminary or advisory opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district court.”). When the evidence is actually offered at trial, the trial court may change its ruling. Luce, 713 F.2d at 1239.

A judge may defer an issue for trial, or make a definitive or final ruling on the merits. K. Broun, et al., McCormick on Evidence, § 52 at 353-54 (7th ed. 2013). If the Court makes a “definitive ruling” before trial, under F.R.E. 103(b), the non-prevailing party “need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.” See C. Wright and K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 5037.16, at 800 (2d ed. 2005). Generally, courts should grant a motion in limine that bars the introduction of evidence “only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Dorman v. Anne Arundel Med. Ctr., MJG-15-1102, 2018 WL 2431859, at *1 (D. Md. May 30, 2018) (quoting Emami v. Bolden, 241 F.Supp.3d 673, 681 (E.D. Va. 2017)).

“‘A district court is accorded a wide discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence under the Federal Rules.'” Sprint/United Management Co. v Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384 (2008) (quoting United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 54 (1984)). Under F.R.E. 402, “[r]elevant evidence is admissible” unless rendered inadmissible pursuant to some other legal provision, but “[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible.” And, “[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be...