Howard University v. Borders

Background

A bench trial was scheduled to begin on September 28, 2022. The parties planned to present direct testimony through written declarations. Before trial, each side objected to portions of the other side’s declarations. Howard University also sought a pretrial ruling excluding defense exhibits DTX-12 and DTX-27.

Rulings on Howard University’s Declarations

- Lisa Jones Gentry: The court overruled the objections. It limited paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 to Jones Gentry’s understanding and intent. It limited paragraph 12 to what was said during the call, and not to the truth of what was said. - Lisa Farrington: The court sustained the objection to the third sentence of the paragraph identified in the order as “917,” based on a lack of foundation for personal knowledge, apart from hearsay. The court also stated that parts of paragraphs 40, 43, 54, and 56 would be considered only for the independently relevant issue of Farrington’s understanding or knowledge when she began working for Howard University. - Scott Baker: The court overruled the objections. - Russell Panczenko: The court reserved ruling on the objections. It would receive a motion to strike at the end of trial based on the defendants’ objections.

Rulings on the Defendants’ Declarations

- Kayla Carlsen: The court sustained the objection to paragraph 14 and excluded that testimony as hearsay. It overruled the remaining objections. - Katharine Richardson: The court overruled the objections except for specified portions. It sustained objections to paragraph 23 based on hearsay and, to the extent the testimony was not intended to convey the contents of notes, relevance. It sustained the objection to paragraph 24 based on hearsay. It also sustained objections to paragraphs 18 and 20 under the best-evidence rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 1002; to another portion identified as paragraph 23 based on hearsay; and to paragraph 34 based on relevance.

The court stated that, unless otherwise indicated, the remaining objections were overruled. It also stated that the rulings did not prevent testimony from being offered if the opposing party opened the door through cross-examination. The court said the rulings did not prejudge the parties’ dispute about the scope of a judicial admission or whether Howard University’s testimony contradicted that admission.

Rulings on Defense Exhibits

The court explained that evidence should be excluded on a motion to limit trial evidence only when it is clearly inadmissible for every potential purpose.

- DTX-12: The court overruled Howard University’s objection. Because Howard University did not then challenge the facts offered by the defendants concerning authentication, the court received the exhibit as an ancient record under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(16) and 901(b)(8). - DTX-27: The court sustained the hearsay objection, subject to a proper foundation being established after cross-examination under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1) or 803(5). The court treated Howard University’s argument that the admissions lacked personal knowledge as concerning the evidence’s weight rather than its admissibility.

Disposition and Classification

Judge Lewis J. Liman entered the order resolving these pretrial evidence objections. The order concerns trial procedure and admissibility of evidence; it does not decide the parties’ underlying claims. The opinion’s reference to “917” and its repeated references to paragraph 23 are reproduced as described in the text and may reflect transcription or drafting irregularities.