United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
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,
RBS CITIZENS, N.A., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: RULINGS ON EXHIBITS
J. Schwab, United States District Judge.
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
Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs'
Compensation Plan Documents
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.
Mortgage Loan Officer Job Description and Policy
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.
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.
Reports and Data
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.
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.
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-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 ...