United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Thomas Marten, Judge.
matter is before the court on the parties' objections to
the admission of certain exhibits at trial. Defendants object
to plaintiffs' Exhibit 126, “Response to EEOC
Charge.” (Dkt. 144). Plaintiffs object to
defendants' Exhibits 35, 46, 48, 49, 57, and 59 (Dkt.
argue that Exhibit 126 is relevant to claims that were
terminated on summary judgment-discrimination, retaliation,
and Kansas Wage Act payments-and are to be excluded pursuant
to this court's in limine order (Dkt. 131). Plaintiffs
plan to redact portions of Exhibit 126, but defendants argue
that extensive redaction would remove all references to these
claims and the context of the statements in this document.
respond that they plan to use the EEOC response for
impeachment as an admission by defendants' authorized
agent. The EEOC response may also be used to refresh a
witness's recollection. Therefore, the court will wait to
rule on defendants' objection until trial.
35 contains Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Stockholders
and Directors of K&L Tank Truck Service, Inc.
(“K&L”) from November 29, 2016. Plaintiffs
argue that the 2016 Minutes are irrelevant to the remaining
claims because the breaches in question occurred in 2013. The
2016 Minutes have no relationship to any of the issues in
counters that the 2016 Minutes are relevant to the issues of
damages and whether there was a contract for lifetime
employment. Defendants explain that K&L had a worse
financial year in 2016 compared to 2013-2015, and therefore
lowers plaintiffs' loss.
court agrees that K&L's 2016 stockholder bonuses are
relevant to the issue of damages and will be admitted for
that purpose. The court disagrees, however, that it is
relevant to the issue of whether Martinez and Mr. Brown
agreed to a contract for lifetime employment. Defendants have
not demonstrated that K&L's 2016 financial stability
was known to Martinez and Brown at the time the alleged
contract was entered into, and the benefit of hindsight is
irrelevant to this issue.
time to time, the shareholders of K&L would loan their
stockholder bonuses to K&L to ensure that the company
would have sufficient funds to pay expenses. The shareholders
would receive 7.5% interest on their loans. Exhibit 46 is a
report of the shareholders' bonuses and notes to the
company. Defendants state that the stockholder bonus in 2013
was lower than usual because K&L's future looked
bleak. Defendants argue that it was less likely the
shareholders would loan K&L money because repayment was
parties agree that K&L's loan structure is not an
issue for the jury, however, they disagree on whether the
shareholders' loan structure is relevant and whether it
will be helpful to the jury. The court finds that background
information regarding K&L's 2013 bonuses and future
success could be relevant to the parties' dealings and
potential damages. But defendants may also be able to present
such evidence without use of Exhibit B (Dkt. 145-2)-which
absent supporting testimony, Exhibit B appears somewhat
confusing and irrelevant. Therefore, the court will wait on
ruling on this issue until trial.
Exhibits 48 and 49
48 and 49, relate to defendants' reasons for terminating
plaintiffs' employment. Plaintiffs argue that
defendants' exhibits are relevant to plaintiffs'
claim of fraud, which is no longer part of this case.
Defendants respond that these exhibits are relevant to
understand what happened in 2013 that led to plaintiffs'
termination as consultants and to the resolution of all
issues that occurred on November 25, 2013- such as the buyout
of Mr. Brown's K & L ...