Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., as successor to M&I Marshall and IIsley Bank
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-01756
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., Judge Wright overruled objections to exhibits about Federal Reserve examinations, limiting their use to evaluating an expert’s testimony.
The ruling affected Douglas A. Kelley, as trustee of the BMO Litigation Trust, and BMO Harris Bank N.A. It allowed BMO Harris to use the challenged exhibits for the limited purpose stated by the court.
What happened
In Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., Douglas A. Kelley, acting as trustee of the BMO Litigation Trust, objected to exhibits that BMO Harris Bank planned to use while questioning banking expert Catherine Ghiglieri. The exhibits concerned Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago examinations from 2002 through 2009.
The court decided the exhibits were relevant because they could help rebut evidence that BMO Harris ignored fraudulent activity or used deficient procedures. They were also relevant to evaluating the accuracy and credibility of Ghiglieri’s opinions because she relied on Federal Reserve materials and the examinations. The court rejected the trustee’s argument that the exhibits were unfairly prejudicial or confusing.
Judge Wright overruled the objections to all listed exhibits. The court said it would instruct the jury to consider the examination evidence only when evaluating the accuracy and credibility of Ghiglieri’s opinions and testimony, and not for any other purpose.
The detailed version
- Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., as successor to M&I Marshall and IIsley Bank · No. 0:19-cv-01756
- Eric Tostrud
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Douglas A. Kelley, in his capacity as trustee of the BMO Litigation Trust, objected to several exhibits that BMO Harris Bank N.A. intended to use during the cross-examination of the trustee’s banking expert, Catherine Ghiglieri. The exhibits included demonstrative exhibits DD-11, DD-13, and DD-14, and ten other exhibits concerning examinations of BMO Harris conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago from 2002 through 2009.
The trustee argued that the exhibits violated the court’s earlier order on motions in limine. He also argued that the exhibits should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because they were unfairly prejudicial and confusing. The court noted that the trustee had previously acknowledged that some evidence from the examinations could be relevant and admissible, including documents showing that the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago repeatedly found deficiencies in BMO Harris’s procedures.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that evidence concerning the examinations was relevant to rebut the trustee’s evidence that BMO Harris’s conduct and procedures were deficient. BMO Harris also sought to undermine Ghiglieri’s testimony. Her expert report relied on Federal Reserve regulatory materials and the examinations, including some of the challenged exhibits. During her direct examination, she testified about Federal Reserve regulations and gave opinions about whether BMO Harris employees performed their jobs appropriately.
Because Ghiglieri relied on the examination evidence and drew opinions from it, the court found that the extent of that reliance was relevant to the jury’s evaluation of the weight and credibility of her opinions. The court therefore overruled the trustee’s objections.
Ruling
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that the trustee’s objections to exhibits DD-11, DD-13, DD-14, DX50073, DX50136, DX50165, DX50233, DX50356, DX50422, DX50445, DX50588, DX50710, and DX50821 were overruled. The court stated that it would give the jury a limiting instruction allowing the evidence to be considered only to evaluate the accuracy and credibility of Catherine Ghiglieri’s opinions and testimony, and not for any other purpose.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.