Grant Stitsworth v. Forest River, Inc.

Summary

The court rules on the parties’ motions in limine in a USERRA reemployment dispute involving Grant Stitsworth and Forest River, Inc. It grants, denies, or conditionally grants the motions concerning hearsay statements, witness exclusion, testimony about reemployment efforts, evidence of Forest River’s military friendliness, military-related testimony, and specified exhibits. The court emphasizes that the rulings are preliminary and may be revised during trial.

Holdings

1. The motion to exclude the alleged statements was granted to the extent the evidence constituted hearsay inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 802, but the statements were not categorically barred because they could potentially be admitted under an exception in Rules 803, 804, or 807.
2. The request to exclude nonparty witnesses was granted, except that Forest River's corporate representative, David Besinger, could remain in the courtroom and testify.
3. The motion to preclude such testimony was denied. Rules 602 and 701 may bar a witness from speculating about conduct the witness did not observe, but they do not categorically bar testimony, within a witness's personal knowledge, that Stitsworth did not speak with that witness.
4. Testimony that Forest River was military-friendly or veteran-friendly was excluded. Such evidence was not probative of the triable USERRA issues and created a risk of confusing or unfairly influencing the jury.
5. Exhibit L, a patriotic-employer award, and Exhibit O, an email concerning another employee's military leave, were excluded under Rule 403. Exhibits M and N, personnel notices concerning another employee's military leave and return, were not categorically excluded.
6. The motion to exclude such evidence was granted because a witness's or relative's military service did not make it more or less likely that the witness willfully violated Section 4312 and risked confusing the jury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether alleged statements by an unidentified person at Forest River's Plant 501 should be excluded as hearsay.
2. Whether nonparty witnesses should be excluded from the courtroom, including whether Forest River's corporate representative should remain present.
3. Whether testimony by Forest River witnesses about what Stitsworth did or did not do when seeking reemployment should be barred under the personal-knowledge, lay-opinion, relevance, or unfair-prejudice rules.
4. Whether testimony and exhibits portraying Forest River as military-friendly or veteran-friendly, including evidence concerning another employee's military leave and an employer award, should be excluded as irrelevant, hearsay, or unfairly prejudicial.
5. Whether evidence that witnesses or their relatives served in the military should be excluded as irrelevant and confusing in a USERRA reemployment action.

Disposition

other