United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendants Key Safety Restraint Systems,
Inc. (“KSS”) and Joe Perkins' Motion in
Limine. Dkt. No. 43. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court will DENY the Motion [#43].
Bradley Hong, a Chinese-American United States Citizen,
initiated this employment discrimination suit after he was
fired by Defendant KSS during a Reduction in Force
(“RIF”) in October 2017. Plaintiff alleges he was
wrongfully terminated on account of his race. In support of
his claims, Plaintiff asserts that his supervisor, Defendant
Joe Perkins, regularly made disparaging remarks directed at
people of Chinese ethnicity during staff meetings. Further,
that Perkins acted on his animus towards the Chinese to
terminate Plaintiff. While Defendants do not refute
Perkins' statements, they argue that he had no role or
influence over the decision to fire Plaintiff. Instead, they
maintain that Yuxin Tang -- KSS's interim President --
made this decision alone. Therefore, Defendants seek to
prevent Plaintiff from introducing Perkins' statements at
trial before establishing their relevance.
motion in limine refers to “any motion, whether made
before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial
evidence before the evidence is actually offered.”
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40, n.2 (1984).
The purpose of these motions is “to narrow the issues
remaining for trial and to minimize disruptions at
trial.” United States v. Brawner, 173 F.3d
966, 970 (6th Cir. 1999). In disposing of a motion in limine,
the guiding principle is to “ensure evenhanded and
expeditious management of trials.” Ind. Ins. Co. v.
GE, 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio, 2004).
argue that before Plaintiff can introduce evidence of
Defendant Perkins' alleged anti-Chinese remarks, he
should be required to lay a foundation that the remarks are
relevant. Specifically, Defendants ask the Court to require
Plaintiff to demonstrate the following:
1. Defendant Perkins significantly contributed to the
decision to eliminate Plaintiff's position;
2. The remarks were related to the decision-making process;
3. The remarks were more than merely vague, ambiguous, or