The opinion of the court was delivered by: DuBOIS, J.
In her Complaint, plaintiff Jennifer Brown alleges that her former employer, defendant DaVita Dialysis ("DaVita"), discriminated against her based on her race and retaliated against her when she complained about the alleged discrimination. She claims, inter alia, that Christopher Paul, the supervisor of DaVita's West Philadelphia clinic, wrongfully terminated her from her job as a nurse on November 1, 2007. (Compl. ¶¶ 15--17.) Plaintiff also alleges that defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate her for time she was required to work in excess of her scheduled forty-hour workweek.
By Order dated November 8, 2011, the Court ruled on several motions in limine filed by both parties. On November 14, 2011, the Court granted partial judgment on the pleadings to Paul and DaVita employees Linda Gaeto and Jill Tortual as to Count VII of the Complaint.*fn1
Now before the Court are Defendant's Motion in Limine to Preclude the Introduction of or Any Reference to the Corrective Action Form Issued to Christopher Paul in April 2010 and the March 29, 2010 E-mails Between Dennis Skrajewski, Matthew Assise, and Christopher Paul ("Def.'s Jan. 24, 2012, Mot. in Limine") and Plaintiff Jennifer Brown's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence and for Costs as a Sanction for Bad Faith Violation of Discovery Order ("Pl.'s Feb. 5, 2012, Mot. in Limine").
II. Defendant's January 24, 2012, Motion in Limine
The Court addresses each of the two documents at issue in defendant's motion in turn.
A. The Corrective Action Form
Defendant moves to exclude a Corrective Action Form (or "Form") issued to Paul by his manager at DaVita, Dennis Skrajewski, in April 2010. (Corrective Action Form, Def.'s Jan. 24, 2012, Mot. in Limine Ex. A.*fn2 ) Defendant argues that the Corrective Action Form is not relevant and is unfairly prejudicial.
Plaintiff responds that the Form "is relevant to prove that Mr. Paul mismanaged and lacked integrity while he supervised Ms. Brown[,] which tends to establish that Mr. Paul's reason for firing Ms. Brown is pretextual and retaliatory." (Pl.'s Answer Def.'s Mot. Limine Preclude Pl.'s Exs. Nos. 3 & 7 ("Pl.'s Ans.") 2.) She argues that the Form "contradicts a plethora of Mr. Paul's' statements at [his] deposition" that he was "a great manager who was justified in terminating Ms. Brown." (Id. at 2--3.)
The Corrective Action Form is a three-page form, completed in type with the exception of signatures and dates, about a "problem performance discussion" in which Skrajewski placed Paul on "Final Written Warning" due to "[i]neffective [l]eadership." (Corrective Action Form
1.) The "Date of Discussion" and signature dates are April 29, 2010. (Id. at 1, 3.) According to the Form, Paul "was placed on a performance improvement plan in February," but his clinic "significantly underperformed in both clinical and financail [sic.] metrics." (Id. at 1.) The Form states that Paul demonstrated "weak leadership" in his "General Management/Judgment with teammates and disciplinary approach" and that his "integrity is questioned by both staff, peers, and senior leadership[,] further complicating [his] ability to be effective." (Id. at 2.) In the "consequences" box, the Form states that Paul's "job is in jeopardy if significant improvement . . . is not immediately demonstrated and sustained." (Id.)
"Evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. The Corrective Action Form is not relevant for two reasons. First, it is too remote in time from the facts giving rise to this case to have any probative value. Second, the Corrective Action Form is not relevant because it does not support an inference of racial discrimination.
Plaintiff alleges that Paul terminated her on November 1, 2007. (Compl. ¶ 21.) The Form records a corrective action taken against Paul on April 29, 2010, because, despite a "performance improvement plan in February"-which the Court infers to be February 2010- and despite "consum[ing] significant ‗support resources,'" the clinic ...