Francois v. Gulf Coast Transportation, Inc.

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2016-cv-01061

ORDER granting in part and denying in part {{84}} Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 7/11/2017. (JD)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 734 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ESTIME FRANCOIS and RENETTE ORDEUS, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:16-cv-1061-T-24 TBM GULF COAST TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant. ______________________________/ ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine. (Doc. No. 84). Defendant has filed a response to the motion. (Doc. No. 85). The Court addressed this motion at the pretrial conference that was held on July 11, 2017. Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence and argument relating to three topics: (1) Plaintiff Francois' prior criminal record; (2) Plaintiffs' immigration status; and (3) the Agreement for Independent Vehicle for Hire Operators ("the Driver Agreements"). As explained below, the Court grants in part and denies in part this motion. With respect to Plaintiff Francois' prior criminal record, the only information about his prior criminal record is that he pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge of trespassing. The Court agrees that evidence and argument relating to the trespassing charge is prohibited by Federal Rule of Evidence 609, because it does not involve a felony or a crime of dishonesty. However, the Court does not know whether the trespassing charge makes up Francois' entire criminal record, and as such, the Court denies the motion to the extent that Francois has a criminal record that includes an admissible felony or crime of dishonesty. PageID 735 With respect to Plaintiffs' immigration status, the Court agrees that such information is irrelevant, unless Plaintiffs raise the issue themselves. As such, the motion in limine on this issue is granted. With respect to the Driver Agreements, the Court finds that they are highly relevant, and there has been no showing that their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion. As such, the motion in limine on this issue is denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 84) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth above. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 11th day of July, 2017. Copies to: Counsel of Record 2