Marcial v. New Hudson Family Restaurant Inc.
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:18-cv-00663
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marcial v. New Hudson Family Restaurant, Judge Halpern partially granted plaintiffs’ evidence motion, limited two witnesses to impeachment, and denied defendants’ motion.
Eleazar Marcial and the other similarly situated plaintiffs, New Hudson Family Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Hudson Buffet and the other defendants, and the two defense witnesses whose testimony was limited to impeachment purposes.
What happened
In Marcial v. New Hudson Family Restaurant Inc., the parties asked the court to decide which evidence could be presented at trial. Plaintiffs sought to bar two defense witnesses because defendants had not disclosed them during discovery, and sought to bar evidence about plaintiffs’ immigration status.
Defendants argued that the witnesses did not have to be disclosed for the subjects about which they would testify. They also sought to limit evidence about overtime calculations, additions to wages such as lodging and food, and opt-in plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Defendants agreed not to offer evidence about plaintiffs’ immigration status.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion in limine and denied defendants’ motion. The two witnesses could testify only for impeachment, evidence about plaintiffs’ immigration status was barred, and the issues raised by defendants would be addressed at the trial’s jury-instruction conference.
The detailed version
- Marcial v. New Hudson Family Restaurant Inc. · No. 7:18-cv-00663
- Judith McCarthy
- Apr. 15, 2021
Background
The parties filed motions in limine—pretrial requests asking the court to limit evidence at trial. Plaintiffs moved to preclude testimony from Gui Li and Guihui Chen because defendants had not identified them in initial disclosures or responses to interrogatories. Plaintiffs also moved to preclude evidence concerning their immigration status.
Defendants argued that the discovery requests did not require them to identify witnesses with knowledge of the subjects on which Gui Li and Guihui Chen would testify. Defendants alternatively argued that the witnesses should be allowed to testify as impeachment witnesses. The court stated that defendants had an obligation to supplement their disclosures and discovery responses when required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, the court ruled that the witnesses could testify for impeachment purposes, even if they had not been disclosed during discovery. The witnesses could therefore be called at trial for impeachment purposes only.
Defendants represented that they would not offer evidence about plaintiffs’ immigration status and considered it irrelevant to the claims. The court granted that branch of plaintiffs’ motion.
Defendants’ Motion
Defendants moved to preclude evidence of unpaid overtime based on the wage calculation used in an earlier decision on a motion to dismiss. They also sought to preclude evidence that defendants’ additions to plaintiffs’ wages—including lodging, transportation, and food—supported an increase in the regular rate of pay. Finally, defendants sought to preclude opt-in plaintiffs from offering evidence concerning their state-law claims.
The court stated that these matters were more properly addressed as jury-instruction issues at trial and before the jury was instructed. It therefore denied defendants’ motion.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion in limine, denied defendants’ motion in limine, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions. This was a pretrial evidence order and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.