825 F. Supp. 2d 1267
S.D. Fla.2011Background
- Ostrow, former GlobeCast employee, sues for Age Discrimination Act claim (Count I) and breach of contract (Count II).
- Ostrow’s contract includes a severance provision; GlobeCast moved for summary judgment, resulting in partial grant/denial, leaving Ostrow’s severance and 2008–2009 bonus claims alive.
- Disputed issue centers on whether severance and bonuses were due under Ostrow’s unambiguous contract language or under its ambiguity requiring extrinsic evidence.
- GlobeCast filed five in limine motions; the court granted some and denied others, with rulings focused on admissibility of parol evidence, settlement discussions, discriminatory evidence, and Togut-related evidence.
- The court deferred ruling on the Togut-related motion pending a proffer at the October 21, 2011 pretrial conference.
- Trial was scheduled to begin October 24, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May extrinsic evidence be admitted to interpret an ambiguous severance provision? | Ostrow argues ambiguity requires extrinsic evidence of intent. | GlobeCast contends the provision is clear and unambiguous. | Court denied exclusion of extrinsic and parol evidence; evidence admissible. |
| May evidence of settlement negotiations be admitted to prove liability/amount or for impeachment? | Not required to exclude; probative value in context of Rule 408. | Settlement negotiations should be excluded under Rule 408. | Grant of motion to exclude settlement negotiations. |
| May evidence of alleged discriminatory treatment of other GlobeCast employees be admitted? | Discriminatory-practice evidence relevant to contract interpretation or damages. | Discrimination evidence is irrelevant to Ostrow’s breach-of-contract claim. | Court denied exclusion; such evidence could be admissible. |
| Should the Togut agreement and related settlement communications be excluded under Rule 408/403? | Evidence of Togut settlement might illuminate GlobeCast’s intent in severance provisions. | Rule 408 applies; or alternatively Rule 403 to exclude prejudicial evidence. | Court defer to rule on Togut matter; will consider proffer at pretrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dallis v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 768 F.2d 1303 (11th Cir. 1985) (Rule 408 applies when evidence relates to a disputed claim as to liability/amount)
- Armstrong v. HRB Royalty, Inc., 392 F.Supp.2d 1302 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (Rule 408, same-claim requirement; same-event/transaction considerations)
- Bradbury v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 815 F.2d 1356 (10th Cir. 1987) (Rule 408 expansion for related claims arising from same project)
- Pearson v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 60 So.3d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (language controls only when contract unambiguous; extrinsic evidence may be needed otherwise)
- U.S. v. Contra Costa Cnty. Water Dist., 678 F.2d 90 (9th Cir. 1982) (relevance and Rule 403 considerations in admitting evidence)
- Dallis v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (alternate entry for completeness), 768 F.2d 1303 (11th Cir. 1985) (See above; included for citation consistency)