Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lints v. Graco Fluid Handling (A) Inc.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

October 15, 2018

MATHEW T. LINTS, an individual. Plaintiff,
v.
GRACO FLUID HANDLING (A) INC., a Minnesota corporation, WHITE KNIGHT FLUID HANDLING, a Utah DBA, WHITE KNIGHT FLUID HANDLING, LLC, a Utah limited liability corporation, SIMMONS HOLDINGS, INC., a Utah corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [97] MOTION IN LIMINE

          DAVID NUFFER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Mathew Lints (“Lints”) filed an Omnibus Motion in Limine (“Motion”), [1] seeking to exclude from trial various undisclosed evidence and references to Lints's criminal and employment history. Defendants Graco Fluid Handling (A), Inc. d/b/a/ White Knight Fluid Handling, White Knight Fluid Handling, LLC, Simmons Holdings, Inc., and John Does 1-5 (collectively, “White Knight”) responded, [2] and Lints replied. [3] As a preliminary matter, White Knight asserts that the Motion does not comply with the court's form trial order governing motions in limine. The Motion includes what are properly 13 separate motions in limine. However, a trial order has not yet been entered in this matter, and more importantly, Lints's failure to comply with the form trial order does not unduly prejudice White Knight or the administration of justice. The current record is sufficient to rule on all issues raised in the Motion.

         DISCUSSION

         As part of his Motion, Lints requests that the following categories of undisclosed evidence be excluded at trial:

1) Previously undisclosed evidence of communications discussing or concerning Lints or the basis for his claims;
2) Previously undisclosed evidence of communications relating to or concerning Lints's termination;
3) Previously undisclosed evidence of steps or measures taken by Defendants to investigate Lints's allegations of harassment;
4) Previously undisclosed evidence of steps or measures taken by Defendants to remedy Lints's allegations of harassment;
5) Previously undisclosed evidence of employees terminated between 2005 and 2015 for excessive absences;
6) Previously undisclosed evidence of employees hired to replace Lints;
7) Previously undisclosed evidence of disciplinary actions taken by Defendants against Lints;
8) Previously undisclosed evidence related to Defendants' failure to mitigate affirmative defense;
9) Previously undisclosed evidence of written or unwritten regulations, rules, or policies governing ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.