Carpenter v. Forest Meadows
Carpenter v. Forest Meadows
Carpenter v. Forest Meadows
, 2011)
-1-
Plaintiff argues, however, that Exhibits 95102 are not intended to show Defendant's
financial condition or address the issue of
punitive damages. (Doc. 61 at 3.) According to
Plaintiff, Exhibits 95102 contain photographs of
Defendant's premises, including the guard shack
where Plaintiff worked, the administrative office
for the premises, the swimming pool that
Plaintiff was required to guard on her patrol, and
the front gate. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff maintains
that she intends to use the photographs to
provide context for Plaintiff's employment
duties and responsibilities, which is relevant in
the liability phase of trial. (Id. at 3.)
"'Relevant evidence' means 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. Relevant evidence, while generally
admissible, may be excluded if "its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the
Page 4
jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste
of time, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Here, Exhibits 95-102 are relevant to the
extent that the pictures will provide a foundation
for the jury to understand the context of
Plaintiff's work environment. See, e.g., Knox v.
City of Monroe, No. 07-606, 2009 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 29454, at *34 (W.D. La. April 6, 2009)
(denying motion in limine to exclude
photographs of the plaintiffs's workspace
because the "photographs are relevant and
helpful to the jury in having a context for [the
plaintiff's] work area"). In addition, Exhibits 95102 do not pose a substantial risk of prejudice to
Defendant. There seems to be little likelihood
that a jury would view photographs of
Defendant's premises, conclude that Defendant
has significant financial resources, and as a
-2-
Testimony
as
Substantive
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9-
- 10 -
a. Disparaging Comments
- 11 -
- 12 -
- 15 -
Page 24
analysis of the two statutes specifically
mentioned in Section 394, California Civil Code
Sections 51 and 52, which reveals that a lawsuit
based upon either subsection (a) or (d) would
not support a cause of action under either of
these sections.11
- 16 -
- 17 -
- 18 -
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jennifer
UNITED
JUDGE
L.
STATES
Thurston
MAGISTRATE
-------Notes:
1.
- 20 -
11.
- 21 -