Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reinig v. RBS Citizens, N.A.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

September 8, 2017

ALEX REINIG, KEN GRITZ, BOB SODA, MARY LOU GRAMESKY, PETER WILDER SMITH, WILLIAM KINSELLA, DANIEL KOLENDA, VALERIA DAL PINO, AHMAD NAJI, ROBERT PEDERSON, TERESA FRAGALE, and DAVID HOWARD, Plaintiffs,
v.
RBS CITIZENS, N.A., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: RULINGS ON EXHIBITS

          Arthur J. Schwab, United States District Judge.

         Trial of a single issue in this matter, whether or not Defendant had a policy or practice that caused mortgage loan officers (MLOs) to not report all of the hours they worked, will commence on September 25, 2017. Doc. No. 65. The Parties have filed an Amended Joint Exhibit List, doc. no. 223, indicating their objections to each other's exhibits, and a Joint Notice of Revisions to the Exhibit List based on the Court's Rulings on the Parties' Motions in Limine, doc. no. 227. The Court makes the following rulings on the Parties' objections:

         I. Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Exhibits

         1. Compensation Plan Documents

         Defendant objects to P-1, P-2, and P-25, which are all MLO compensation plan documents, as irrelevant and cumulative to and duplicative of JT-4, the 2013 MLO Compensation Plan. P-1, P-2, and P-25 are not identical to JT-4 and are relevant to the issue to be tried. Accordingly, Defendant's objections to P-1, P-2, and P-25 are OVERRULED.

         2. Mortgage Loan Officer Job Description and Policy Documents

         Defendant objects to P-3, the MLO job description, as confusing or misleading, hearsay, and not properly authenticated; and P-7, MLO time management guidelines, as duplicative of a portion of JT-3. Defendant's objections to P-3 are OVERRULED because it is a Citizens business record that has relevant information about the MLOs required work duties and expectations. Defendant's objections to P-7 are SUSTAINED because it is duplicative.

         3. Emails

         Plaintiffs' exhibit P-4 is 210 pages of collected email correspondence between various actors. The Parties seem to agree that P-4 contains 97 separate “parts” and Defendant objected to each part individually. The Court finds that the vast majority of the email correspondence is relevant and admissible and will OVERRULE Defendant's objections, except that the Court will SUSTAIN the objections to: P-4 (6) as that page is entirely redacted; P-4 (7) as irrelevant; P-4 (16) as duplicative; P-4 (28) as duplicative; P-4 (31) and (32) as duplicative; P-4 (45) as duplicative; P-4 (85) as incomplete and lacking foundation as it is unclear from the document whether it was actual email correspondence; and P-4 (91) as incomplete and potentially misleading to the jury.

         4. Reports and Data

         Defendant objects to P-5, a document entitled “Retail LO Sales 2017 Budget Overtime Reviews, ” which is ostensibly an analysis of MLO overtime use and the related expense for a period of time. Defendant objects that the document is irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, would confuse the issues or mislead the jury, is hearsay, and lacks proper foundation. The Court finds that the document is a relevant business record and OVERRULES Defendant's objections.

         Defendant objects to P-6, an electronic file ostensibly showing hours worked by all class members, as inauthentic and lacking the proper foundation. Plaintiffs respond that the foundation will be shown through the designee witness and that the file was created by Defendant and produced in discovery. Plaintiffs also indicate that P-26 is a summary of P-6 pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 1006. As indicated in the Court's rulings on the Parties' Motions in Limine, doc. no. 224, Plaintiffs will be permitted to present this summary evidence. P-6, therefore, is cumulative to the summary exhibit and therefore unnecessary for trial. Defendant's objection to P-6 is SUSTAINED and Defendant's objection to P-26 is OVERRULED.

         Defendant objects to P-8, a 22-page list of the names of class members with employee identification numbers, as irrelevant. Plaintiff argues that the Class List is necessary to show the size of the class because “[Defendant] will argue [that Plaintiffs'] evidence is too anecdotal.” Proffering a list of names does little to refute that argument. The court finds that P-8 is irrelevant and will SUSTAIN Defendant's objection, but Plaintiffs will not be precluded from referencing the size of the class.

         P-9 and P-10 are Commission Reports for certain Named Plaintiffs and Opt-In Plaintiffs. Defendant objects to these exhibits as irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, and inauthentic. Plaintiffs contend that these business records of Citizens are relevant to show hours worked by the MLOs and their production. The Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.