Guidehouse LLP v. Shah
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-09470
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guidehouse v. Shah, Judge Vyskocil granted and denied motions to exclude trial evidence and reserved one damages-evidence issue.
Guidehouse LLP and Rizwan Shah, whose pretrial requests to exclude evidence were partly granted, partly denied, or left undecided.
What happened
In Guidehouse LLP v. Shah, both sides asked the court to exclude evidence before trial. Guidehouse sought to exclude evidence about other partners’ departures and severance payments, its response to Shah’s discrimination claims, and the value of certain financial interests. Shah sought to exclude evidence about his personal life and finances.
The court granted Guidehouse’s request concerning other partners’ departures and severance payments, denied its request concerning its response to Shah’s discrimination claims, and reserved decision on evidence about the value of Shah’s Membership Interests and the PwC Special Retention Award pending additional briefing about consequential damages. The court also granted Shah’s request concerning certain personal and financial information.
Judge Vyskocil stated that the evidentiary rulings could change as the case develops or if a party makes previously excluded evidence relevant. The court requested that the clerk close docket entries 58 and 60.
The detailed version
- Guidehouse LLP v. Shah · No. 1:19-cv-09470
- Vyskocil
- June 22, 2021
Background
This order memorialized rulings made at a June 22, 2021 conference on the parties’ motions in limine. A motion in limine asks the court to decide before trial whether forecasted evidence may be admitted.
Guidehouse LLP asked the court to preclude, or bar, evidence concerning: (1) the circumstances of other Guidehouse partners’ departures and the severance payments they received; (2) Guidehouse’s response to Rizwan Shah’s discrimination claims; and (3) the value of Shah’s Membership Interests and the PwC Special Retention Award. Shah asked the court to preclude evidence concerning certain facts about his personal life and finances. Both parties filed oppositions.
Rulings
The court granted Guidehouse’s motion to preclude evidence about the circumstances of other partners’ departures and their severance payments. It concluded that this evidence had no bearing on Shah’s rights under the Employment Agreement or on whether he terminated his employment for “Good Reason,” and therefore was not relevant to the claims to be tried.
The court denied Guidehouse’s motion to preclude evidence about its response to Shah’s discrimination claims. The court found that evidence relevant to whether Guidehouse corrected the events that led Shah to submit notice of Good Reason and to the timing of the cure period.
The court reserved decision on Guidehouse’s motion concerning potential damages—specifically, the value of Shah’s Membership Interests and the PwC Special Retention Award—pending supplemental briefing on whether consequential damages are available.
The court granted Shah’s motion to preclude evidence about certain facts concerning his personal life and finances, finding that the evidence was not relevant to whether Shah terminated his employment for Good Reason.
Effect of the Order
The court noted that its rulings were subject to change as the case developed. Evidence excluded as irrelevant could become relevant if a party opened the door to it. The clerk was requested to close docket entries 58 and 60.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.