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.

Garcia v. Green

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

January 14, 2019

LINDSAY ARMOND GARCIA
v.
STANLEY GREEN, ET AL.

         SECTION “R” (3)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          SARAH S. VANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Lindsay Armond Garcia pursues damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress from defendant Stanley Green on the basis of his behavior while she was his subordinate at the William J. Fisher School.[1]In anticipation of trial, Green has objected to several of Garcia's exhibits.[2]The Court rules on these objections as set forth below.

         I. DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS

         A. EEOC Charge of Discrimination

         Green seeks to exclude Garcia's Charge of Discrimination filed with the EEOC as irrelevant to her IIED claim and substantially more prejudicial than probative under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.[3] Garcia's act of filing the EEOC charge is relevant evidence on the issues of her severe emotional distress and the lack of welcomeness of Green's advances. Fed.R.Evid. 402. While the charge is hearsay if introduced for the truth of the claims made in it, it may be introduced as relevant evidence of Garcia's attempts to report Green's behavior. Dunn v. Hunting Energy Servs., 288 F.Supp.3d 749, 762 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (complaint may be introduced for the non-hearsay purpose of proving that it was filed). The charge is not unduly prejudicial because Garcia's accusations against Green in the charge are no more prejudicial than the evidence that will be elicited through Garcia's testimony. In addition, the Court can limit any prejudice by instructing the jury of the limited purpose for which the charge may be used. The EEOC charge's probative value as a contemporaneous record of Garcia's actions to report Green is not substantially outweighed by its risk of prejudice under Rule 403, and it is therefore admissible.

         OVERRULED.

         B. Garcia's Affidavit

         For the reasons explained in the Court's order on Green's motion in limine seeking to exclude the same affidavit, [4] Garcia's affidavit is hearsay and cannot be used to prove the truth of the matters asserted within it. But Garcia may introduce the affidavit to prove that she complained about Green's behavior to ACSA, which is relevant to the severity of her emotional distress. Dunn, 288 F.Supp.3d at 762 (workplace complaint is not hearsay when used to prove that it was filed). In addition, because the notebook from which Garcia created the affidavit was not lost in bad faith, the loss of the original notebook does not render the affidavit inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 1002. The affidavit is not a summary, so Rule 1006 does not apply.

         OVERRULED.

         C. Confidential Investigation Report and Supplemental Report

         For the reasons explained in the Court's order on defendant's motion in limine to exclude these reports, [5] Tafaro's reports are hearsay and are not covered by any exception to Rule 802. The reports are therefore inadmissible.

         SUSTAINED.

         D. Green's Hire Date

         Green seeks to exclude ACSA's record of Green's hire date because it is not relevant to Garcia's claims.[6] The date that Green was hired does not have any bearing on his actions toward Garcia. The relevant dates for Garcia's claims would instead be the date that Green met Garcia, began working with her, or began ...


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.