United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
ALECIA M. RIDEAU, M.D.
LAFAYETTE HEALTH VENTURES, INC., ET AL.
JUDGE PATRICK J. HANNA
A. DOUGHTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an action brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.
(“FMLA”). Pending here is an omnibus Motion in
Limine [Doc. No. 86] filed by Defendants Lafayette Health
Ventures, Inc. (“LHVI”); Lafayette General Health
System, Inc. (“LGHS”); and Lafayette General
Medical Center, Inc. (“LGMC”) (collectively
“Defendants”). Plaintiff Alecia M. Rideau, M.D.
(“Dr. Rideau”) has filed an opposition [Doc. No.
following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rideau is a radiologist whose specialty is interpreting
breast imaging. [Doc. No. 1. at ¶ 12]. From December 1,
2014, to September 1, 2016, Dr. Rideau worked at the Breast
Center at LGMC. [Id. at ¶ 13].
April 6, 2018, Dr. Rideau filed this lawsuit against
Defendants alleging two claims for relief: (1) interference
under the FMLA, in that Defendants illegally denied her FMLA
leave; and (2) retaliation under the FMLA, in that Defendants
retaliated against her for exercising her FMLA rights,
culminating in her termination from employment. [Doc. No. 1].
Rideau alleges that, after she was diagnosed with breast
cancer, took FMLA leave to have a double mastectomy,
complained about retaliation associated with exercising FMLA
rights, and requested a second FMLA leave for breast
reconstructive surgery, Defendants terminated her employment.
[Id. at ¶¶ 14, 22, 34 and 35].
present five (5) subparts in their motion in limine for the
Court's consideration. The Court will consider each in
Law and Analysis
Motions in Limine
motion in limine is a motion made prior to trial for the
purpose of prohibiting opposing counsel from mentioning the
existence of, alluding to, or offering evidence on matters so
highly prejudicial to the moving party that a timely motion
to strike or an instruction by the court to the jury to
disregard the offending matter cannot overcome its
prejudicial influence on the jurors' minds. Mathis v.
Pinnacle Entm't, Inc., CIV.A. 11-2199, 2014 WL
2880217, at *5 (W.D.La. June 23, 2014) (quoting Bocalbos
v. Nat'l W. Life Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 379 (5th Cir.
Relevancy Under the Federal Rules of Evidence
essential prerequisite of admissibility is relevance.
United States v. Hall, 653 F.2d 1002, 1005
(5th Cir. 1981) (Citing Fed.R.Evid. 402). Rule 401
defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to
make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable
than it would be without the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 401.
Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Fed.R.Evid.
402. Implicit in the above definition are two distinct
requirements: (1) the evidence must be probative of the
proposition it is offered to prove, and (2) the proposition
to be proved must be one that is of consequence to the
determination of the action. Hall, 653 F.2d at 1005.
Whether a proposition is of consequence to the determination
of the action is a question that is governed by the
substantive law. Simply stated, the proposition to be proved
must be part of the hypothesis governing the case a matter
that is in issue, or probative of a matter that is in issue,
in the litigation. Id.
pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the
Court may exclude evidence that satisfies the above
requirements for relevancy “if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading
the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403.
“‘Unfair prejudice' within its context means
an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis,
commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.”
Fed.R.Evid. 403, 1972 Advisory Committee Note.
Hearsay Under the ...