Andazola v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc.

2 Citing briefs

  1. Pettigrew v. Atlanta Independent School System

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed February 28, 2017

    “[M]ore often than not,” courts should deem “me too” evidence inadmissible “because the probative value of such evidence is judged to Case 1:15-cv-02360-TWT-JCF Document 45 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 18 3 be ‘substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.’” Andazola v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc., 2013 WL 2355350, at *2 (N.D. Ala. May 24, 2013). For instance, in Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Company, the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiff’s “me too” evidence was admissible under Rules 402 and 404(b) “to prove the intent of Bagby Elevator to discriminate and retaliate.”

  2. Webb v. Atlanta Independent School System

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 28, 2016

    “[M]ore often than not,” courts should deem “me too” evidence inadmissible “because the probative value of such evidence is judged to be Case 1:15-cv-01613-RWS-WEJ Document 60 Filed 12/28/16 Page 5 of 18 - 6 - ‘substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.’” Andazola v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc., 2013 WL 2355350, at *2 (N.D. Ala. May 24, 2013) (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 403). For instance, in Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Company, the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiff’s “me too” evidence was admissible under Rules 402 and 404(b) “to prove the intent of Bagby Elevator to discriminate and retaliate.”