Elizabeth Graham v. Bristol Hospice Holdings, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied without prejudice three motions in limine filed by Elizabeth Graham in an employment dispute against Bristol Hospice Holdings, Inc. The court addressed the admissibility of employee statements, Debra Wertz’s journal, and Kirton McConkie’s response to an EEOC charge, focusing primarily on hearsay exceptions, foundation, relevance, and Rule 403. The court permitted the defendant an opportunity at trial to establish foundation for the statements and journal, while reserving the EEOC-response issue for rebuttal if necessary.

Holdings

1. The written statements were offered for the truth of the matters asserted and therefore constituted hearsay. The court declined to exclude them finally at the pretrial stage because Defendant might establish a business-record foundation at trial.
2. The written statements did not qualify for the present-sense-impression exception on the record presented because they were written days or weeks after the events described.
3. Defendant did not satisfy its burden to establish admissibility under the residual-hearsay exception, and the court would not permit the statements under that exception without additional support.
4. The written statements had sufficient relevance to disputed facts concerning the reasons for Plaintiff's termination, and Plaintiff did not show that exclusion under Rule 403 was warranted.
5. The court denied the motion to exclude the journal without prejudice because Defendant could attempt to establish a business-record foundation at trial, but any embedded hearsay would require an exception for each layer of the hearsay chain.
6. The journal entries had some relevance to disputed workplace interactions, and Plaintiff did not establish that the extraordinary remedy of Rule 403 exclusion was warranted.
7. The court denied without prejudice Plaintiff's motion concerning Kirton McConnie's response to the EEOC charge because Defendant represented that it would not offer the document unless necessary for rebuttal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the written statements of Myers, Warren, and Biesinger were inadmissible hearsay or could potentially qualify for the business-records, present-sense-impression, or residual-hearsay exceptions.
2. Whether the written statements were irrelevant or subject to exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
3. Whether Wertz's journal was inadmissible hearsay, including double hearsay, or could potentially qualify as a business record.
4. Whether the journal entries were irrelevant or subject to exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
5. Whether Plaintiff's motion concerning Kirton McConnie's response to the EEOC charge should be granted when Defendant did not intend to offer the response except possibly for rebuttal.

Disposition

other