MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Samsung SDIA America's ("SDIA") motion to exclude testimony or other evidence by co-employee non-decision makers (Dkt. 58). The issues have been fully briefed, and the issues can be resolved without the aid of oral argument. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion.
Plaintiff Beth Sommers-Wilson has brought claims of gender discrimination and retaliation following her termination at SDIA. Sommers-Wilson was the Director of Project Management for SDIA and had a strained working relationship with Stefan Roepke, the General Manager of SDIA and her boss. See Am. Op. & Order Denying Summ. J. at 1-2 (Dkt. 75). As evidence of her claims, Sommers-Wilson describes that Roepke would often contradict her in front of her team members and undermine her in other ways. See id. at 2. This, along with a host of other evidence, forms the basis of Sommers-Wilson's prima facie case. SDIA claims that it fired Sommers-Wilson for a non-discriminatory reason, specifically her management of the "Flourine" project, which SDIA claims was significantly overbudget.
To support her arguments regarding the atmosphere at SDIA, Sommers-Wilson seeks to call multiple witnesses, including co-employees Marina Hamlett and Socorro Kalinowski. A declaration from Hamlett was attached to Sommers-Wilson's response to SDIA's summary judgment motion, and thus far forms the only basis to evaluate the relevance of her potential testimony. In the declaration, she avers that she worked on the Flourine project with Sommers-Wilson as project leader, and describes Sommers-Wilson as "professional, efficient, and organized," explaining that Sommers-Wilson utilized a computer system that tracked tasks and timing and ensured that everybody was held accountable. Hamlett Decl., Ex. B to Pl. Supp. Br. on Mot., ¶¶ 4-5 (Dkt. 78-3). Hamlett also avers that Sommers-Wilson would lead weekly product development meetings, which Roepke would sometimes attend.
Kalinowski has already provided her testimony for trial by way of a
SDIA filed a motion to exclude Hamlett and Kalinowski from testifying. It argued that their proffered testimony should be excluded on relevancy grounds under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 and as improper opinion testimony under Rule 701. SDIA also argued in its supplemental brief (Dkt. 82) that Hamlett's recitation of the Raines promotion was not factually accurate.
The Court denies the motion as it relates to Marina Hamlett, except that Sommers-Wilson will not be permitted to present her testimony or other evidence regarding the Raines promotion unless developments at trial establish its admissibility.
SDIA has offered two reasons why Hamlett should not be permitted to testify. First, it argues that her testimony is not relevant, or, if it is, its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, undue delay, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury. The Court disagrees; much of Hamlett's proffered testimony is relevant under Rule 402 and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the dangers articulated in Rule 403. Contrary to SDIA's representations, Hamlett does not merely provide self-serving, subjective opinions. Her declaration contains specific examples to support her conclusions, explaining that Sommers-Wilson utilized a computer system to track her team's work on their projects. Hamlett Decl. ¶ 5. She also supports her conclusion that Roepke would "take over" meetings from Sommers-Wilson, detailing that Roepke would disregard the agenda that Sommers-Wilson had prepared, and that his revised agenda would have little to do with the engineering aspects of the project. Id. ¶ 8. Further, she provides relevant background information about the Flourine project, averring that the program was always over budget and was not quoted properly from the beginning. Id. ¶ 12. These pieces of evidence relate to various aspects of Sommers-Wilson's discrimination claim, and thus have high probative value; there is relatively little danger that the testimony will result in any prejudice or undue delay, or that the jury would be misled by it. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
SDIA also argues that Hamlett may not testify about discriminatory conduct that was directed towards her, as opposed to the conduct directed towards Sommers-Wilson. The Sixth Circuit has explained that a number of factors are relevant when determining the admissibility of this type of "other acts" evidence:
Here, the factors weigh in favor of admission. Hamlett has proffered that Roepke would constantly interrupt, ignore, talk over, and cut her off when she attempted to speak at meetings, and that she never saw him do this to men.
This leaves the matter of the Raines promotion. Hamlett's declaration describes that Domarius Raines was named Senior Engineer "[a]fter Stefan Roepke came aboard as General Manager at Samsung SDI" despite Hamlett's more pertinent experience.
The Court will exclude any reference to the Raines promotion from trial. There is relatively little probative value in this proposed testimony, as it is not even clear from Hamlett's declaration that it was Roepke's decision to promote Raines over Hamlett. Additionally, Hamlett does not adequately explain how she was more qualified for the position beyond her "more pertinent experience," Hamlett Decl. ¶ 6. And even if she had "more pertinent experience," employers utilize a host of other factors in making promotions — such as educational attainment, work ethic, intelligence, pace of work, and team spirit, among others — none of which Hamlett discusses. Nor does she detail any possible deficits in her qualifications or the absence of same, thereby failing to give anything approaching a sufficiently robust comparison that might lead to an inference of gender-based discrimination. This low probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue delay and confusion of the issues. Admission of the evidence would lead to a mini-trial over the decision to promote Raines — a significant expenditure of time regarding an episode that does not hold much promise of shedding light on the principal issues in the case. Thus, unless circumstances arise during trial that alter this analysis, the Court will exclude any testimony or evidence about the Raines promotion.
For these reasons, the Court denies SDIA's motion as it relates to Hamlett except that testimony or evidence regarding the Raines promotion will be excluded.
The Court has had the opportunity to review the entirety of Kalinowski's testimony, and grants the motion to exclude her testimony in part. Some of Kalinowski's testimony about Sommers-Wilson consists of generalities, i.e., that she is a great leader and that Roepke did not respect her.
She did testify to two more specific items. One is that Roepke would meet with male managers without Sommers-Wilson present. See Kalinowksi Dep. at 23-24. The other is that Sommers-Wilson and Roepke rarely spoke in the office, but that Roepke did speak to the men in the office. These factual statements, without any commentary or speculation by Kalinowski, support Sommers-Wilson's factual contention that Roepke treated her differently than the way he treated men. While there may be innocent explanations for these episodes, that possibility does not make the testimony irrelevant.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part the motion as it relates to Kalinowski's testimony.
As explained above, Defendant's motion to exclude testimony or other evidence by coemployee non-decision makers is granted in part and denied in part. The testimony of Kalinowski will be excluded except fsssor the two factual matters recited above. The parties must confer with the goal of detailing the specific pages and lines that will be played for the jury. They must submit to chambers by 10 a.m. on January 2, 2019, a mark-up of the deposition showing their areas of agreement and disagreement, if any, and what objections stated on the record remain to be resolved. If there are disagreements, the Court will hold a telephonic hearing at 10:00 a.m. on January 3, 2019, to resolve the disagreements. Sommers-Wilson will be allowed to present Hamlett as a witness, except that no evidence related to the Raines promotion will be allowed unless developments at trial justify its admission.
SO ORDERED.