Lisa Tornabene v. City of Blackfoot, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho

[[COURTLISTENER_SUBOPINION {"id":"11181758","type":"100trialcourt","part":"other","author":null,"source_field":"html_with_citations"}]]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           

                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO                            


LISA TORNABENE,                                                          
                                  Case No. 4:22-cv-00180-AKB             
          Plaintiff,                                                     

v.                                MEMORANDUM DECISION AND                
                                  ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED          
CITY OF BLACKFOOT, a political    OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE               
subdivision of the State of Idaho,  (DKT. 84)                            

          Defendant.                                                     


    Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Omnibus Motion in Limine (Dkt. 84). 
Having reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that the facts and legal 
argument are adequately presented and that oral argument would not significantly aid its decision-
making  process,  and  it  decides  the  motion  on  the  parties’  briefing.  Dist.  Idaho  Loc.  Civ. 
R. 7.1(d)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in 
part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion.                               
                         BACKGROUND                                      
    Following summary judgment, Tornabene has two outstanding claims remaining for trial, 
including Count I for disability discrimination and Count II for failure to accommodate, both of 
which are alleged under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12101
, 
et seq., and the Idaho Human Rights Act,
Idaho Code § 67-5901
, et. seq.1 Tornabene has filed an 
omnibus motion in limine seeking to exclude: (1) Mayor Carroll’s testimony about unidentified 

1    Tornabene also alleged her disability discrimination and failure to accommodate claims 
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
29 U.S.C. § 701
, et seq. Tornabene, however, is no longer 
pursuing her claims under the Rehabilitation Act (Dkt. 89 at 2 n.1).      
individuals’ alleged complaints about her; (2) surveillance videos showing her onsite after hours; 
and (3) evidence of retirement benefits from her former employer, Merck & Co (“Merck retirement 
benefits”).                                                               
                        LEGAL STANDARD                                   

    Motions in limine are a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence 
in a particular area. United States v. Heller,
551 F.3d 1108, 1111
(9th Cir. 2009). Like other pretrial 
motions, motions in limine are useful tools to resolve issues which would otherwise clutter up the 
trial. City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp.,
866 F.3d 1060, 1070
(9th Cir. 2017). A motion in 
limine should not be used, however, to resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence. C&E Servs., 
Inc. v. Ashland Inc.,
539 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323
(D.D.C. 2008). Further, rulings on motions in limine 
are provisional, are not binding on the trial judge, and may be revised during trial. Ohler v. United 
States,
529 U.S. 753
, 758 n.3 (2000). As such, a ruling on a motion in limine is essentially a 
preliminary opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district court. City of Pomona,
866 F.3d at 1070
; see Luce v. United States,
469 U.S. 38
, 41 n.4 (1984).  

                           ANALYSIS                                      
A.   Complaints About Plaintiff’s Remote Work                             
    Tornabene moves to exclude evidence of alleged complaints regarding her remote work 
(Dkt. 84-1 at 3). Specifically, she seeks to exclude Mayor Caroll’s testimony regarding unidentified 
individuals complaining about her working remotely (id.). In response, the City agrees Mayor 
Carroll will “not [] present evidence of other complaints that were made by Department Heads 
regarding Plaintiff’s refusal to return to work,” unless Tornabene opens the door to such evidence 
(Dkt. 95 at 2). Tornabene acknowledges this agreement in her reply (Dkt. 98 at 1). 
    Tornabene’s motion in limine, however, appears to be somewhat broader than merely 
seeking to exclude Mayor Caroll’s testimony about other’s complaints regarding Tornabene’s 
remote work. For example, Tornabene argues that “no witness should be allowed to offer any 
testimony regarding any alleged complaints about Plaintiff working remotely” (Dkt. 84-1 at 8; see 

also Dkt. 98 at 2) (“[A]ny allegations raised by [Rex Moffett, Wade Gardener, Princeton Lee, and 
Kevin Gray] claiming that Plaintiff’s remote work caused discontent, or caused delay in resolving 
HR issues, or any other claimed demerit against Plaintiff are irrelevant.”). In support, Tornabene 
argues “there is no evidence to support” “that anyone complained about [her] working remotely” 
(id).                                                                     
    The City’s agreement to limit Mayor Carroll’s testimony does not address Tornabene’s 
request to exclude all testimony about complaints of her remote work. At this time, the Court 
declines to rule that no witness can testify about such complaints. The City identifies numerous 
trial  witnesses  who  it  represents  will  testify,  for  example,  about  the  difficulties  they  had 
communicating with Tornabene while she was working remotely and that they had to handle 

various human resources functions in her absence (see Dkt. 94). To the extent these witnesses have 
personal knowledge about Tornabene working remotely, including complaints, that evidence is 
relevant to whether being present in-person was an essential function of the job and whether 
Tornabene was performing the essential functions of the job.              
B.   Video                                                                
    Tornabene also moves to exclude surveillance video of her “coming to the office during 
evening hours” (Dkt. 84-1 at 8). She describes the video as showing her “husband assisting her 
with filing and taking care of business after hours for tasks that required her to physically be in the 
City building” (id.). In support of her assertion that the video should be excluded, Tornabene argues 
it  is  irrelevant  because  it  “had  no  influence  or  impact  on  the  decision  to  terminate  [her] 
employment” and that as a result, it would “confuse and mislead the jury” and “cause unfair 
prejudice” (id. at 8, 9).                                                 
    The City opposes Tornabene’s motion to exclude the video, arguing it is probative of 

whether regular in-person attendance was an essential function of Tornabene’s position and 
whether she could perform those essential functions. The Court agrees. The jury will be required 
to resolve the factual issues of what the essential functions of Tornabene’s position are and whether 
she is “qualified” to perform those functions. Video showing Tornabene performing functions 
onsite and with assistance is directly relevant to these factual questions. Further, the video’s 
probative value is substantial and not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or 
misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Accordingly, the Court declines to exclude the video. 
C.   Merck Retirement Benefits                                            
    Finally, Tornabene moves to exclude any evidence of her Merck retirement benefits. In 
support, she argues her retirement benefits from unrelated employment is a collateral source 

income, which may not be used to reduce her damages and is, thus, irrelevant (Dkt. 84-1 at 9-10). 
In response, the City argues it does not seek to introduce Tornabene’s Merck retirement benefits 
to offset damages; rather, it seeks to introduce evidence of these benefits “to explain why Plaintiff 
failed to mitigate her damages” (Dkt. 95 at 4). It surmises that because Tornabene “has been or 
will be receiving retirement benefits from her previous job [she] simply did not need to mitigate 
her damages” (id. at 5).                                                  
    The Court agrees with Tornabene that her Merck retirement benefits are not relevant to any 
issue in this case. Regardless of her available resources, Tornabene had a duty to mitigate her 
damages. At issue is whether Tornabene’s mitigation efforts were reasonable, not whether she was 
motivated to mitigate her damages. Evidence of her Merck retirement benefits does not tend to 
make her mitigation efforts to reduce her damages in this case either more or less reasonable. 
Accordingly, the probative value of this evidence is minimal, and any conceivable relevance is 
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and juror confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. 
For this reason, the Court will exclude any evidence of Tornabene’s Merck retirement benefits. 
                                  ORDER 
     For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Renewed Omnibus Motion in 
Limine (Dkt. 84) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows: 
     1.  Per the parties’ agreement, the City will not introduce Mayor Carroll’s testimony about 
        other’s complaints regarding Tornabene’s remote work unless she opens the door to 
        that evidence. To the extent Tornabene seeks to exclude all evidence regarding her 
        working remotely, however, that motion is DENIED. 
     2.  The Court DENIES Tornabene’s motion to exclude video evidence of her at the office 
        after hours. 
     3.  The Court GRANTS Tornabene’s motion to exclude evidence of her Merck retirement 
        benefits. 

                                        LSE.         DATED: October 30, 2025 
                                       us) Dranda$  Croshere 
                                        NZ   Amanda K. Brailsford 
                                        “RicTg       U.S. District Court Judge 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5