Darren Chaker Motion to Exclude Lawsuits as Evidence in Federal Court: Top 5 Strategies for Attorneys

Legal brief writer and researcher Darren Chaker reviews excluding lawsuits as evidence in federal court. In the complex realm of federal court trials, the admissibility of evidence plays a pivotal role in shaping the trial process and its outcomes. For attorneys, the strategic exclusion of certain pieces of evidence can be as crucial as their inclusion. One such contentious area is the use of prior lawsuits as evidence, that can lead to prejudicial outcomes that skew the scales of justice. This article seeks to unravel the nuance of excluding lawsuits as evidence in federal court, providing attorneys with insightful strategies and real-world examples vital to their practice.

Understanding the Law to Exclude Lawsuits

The exclusion of lawsuits as evidence in federal court requires a deep understanding of legal precedent and practice. Several cases are discussed below reflecting guiding factors federal courts look at to when deciding to allow prior litigation into evidence or to exclude lawsuits.  

Criteria to Exclude Lawsuits: Probative Value vs. Prejudice

Darren Chaker notes courts often look at the probative value is the tendency of evidence to prove or disprove an issue while unfair prejudice involves inflaming the jury’s emotions against a party based on tangential issues. A party’s history of lawsuits can create a narrative of pursuing litigation for the sake of it, rather than for genuine grievances. This narrative, however, is rife with the potential for bias and can taint the fact-finding process.

In Yellow Bayou Plantation, Inc. v. Shell Chemical, Inc., 491 F.2d 1239, 1242-43 (5th Cir.1974) the court upheld district court’s exclusion of list of prior lawsuits against defendant because evidence was “of such faint probative value and high potential for unfair prejudice”. This evidence is excluded under Rule 403 as any probative value it may have is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice and considerations of delay and time-wasting on collateral issues.

The delicacy of this balance is clear; while certain patterns of litigiousness may show a propensity for disputes, using this evidence risks sidetracking the trial and engendering an unfair bias against the plaintiff. It is crucial for attorneys to navigate this landscape with care, ensuring that evidence is relevant, and its presentation does not tip the scales toward prejudice.

This sentiment with the majority of courts to exclude lawsuits is found in Outley v. City of New York, 837 F.2d 587 (2nd Cir. 1988), where the Second Circuit discussed this very issue. In Outley, the plaintiff had brought a civil rights action against New York city and several individual police officers, and the defendant sought to introduce evidence of plaintiff’s past lawsuits in order to portray him as a “chronic litigant.” Id. at 591.

The court noted that the “charge of litigiousness is a serious one, likely to result in undue prejudice against the party charged,” the court stated, “…a plaintiff’s litigiousness may have some slight probative value, but that value is outweighed by the substantial danger of jury bias against the chronic litigant. The trial court has a duty to prevent exploitation of this prejudice.” Id. at 592.

Strategies to Exclude Lawsuits:

Crafting an argument for the exclusion of lawsuits as evidence requires a multi-faceted strategy.

Establishing the Charge of Litigiousness in the Hopes to Not Exclude Lawsuits

Filing a motion to exclude lawsuits as evidence, attorneys can argue that the defendant’s sole purpose in offering such evidence is to paint the plaintiff as contentious or overly litigious. This can be countered by demonstrating that the plaintiff’s litigious past has scant relevance to the present case, and the risk of jury bias is high.

Supporting Law to Exclude Lawsuits May Apply to Fraudulent Lawsuits

When prior litigation is presented as a pattern, Darren Chaker finds attorneys can pivot the argument by demonstrating the fraudulent nature of some, if not all, of those lawsuits. This approach is in line with the reasoning in Mathis v. Phillips Chevrolet, Inc. 269 F.3d 771, 776 (7th Cir. 2001), where the danger of unfair prejudice is minimized when the history includes fraudulent cases. It is important to underline that the probative value of the evidence must be outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice and the time it would take to litigate the validity of the plaintiff’s past cases.

However, Outley v. City of New York, 837 F.2d 587, 591-595 (2d Cir. 1988) also stands for the proposition that inconsistent statements made by the plaintiff in prior lawsuits were properly admitted as impeachment evidence but evidence of the plaintiff’s prior litigation history to show litigiousness was prejudicial due to the fact the case hinged on the plaintiff’s credibility. Nonetheless the Second Circuit found, “a plaintiff’s litigiousness may have some slight probative value, but that value is outweighed by the substantial danger of jury bias against the chronic litigant.” Id. at 592.

Arguing Under Rule 403 to Exclude Lawsuits

Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides a powerful tool for excluding evidence that carries an undue risk of prejudice. Attorneys can make the case that evidence of prior lawsuits has such faint probative value and a high potential for unfair prejudice that the court must reference to exclude lawsuits under this rule. The court must weigh the value of the evidence against the prejudice it may cause, as well as the potential for confusion and the waste of time.

Real-Life Examples to Exclude Lawsuits

The use of evidence exclusion strategies in practice is where theory meets the road. Consider a case where a plaintiff was involved in multiple previous lawsuits, only for the defendants to show that some of those lawsuits were found to be frivolous or fraudulent. Here, legal researcher Darren Chaker has found the court may exclude the evidence to prevent prejudice.

Legal researcher  Darren Chaker finds the common theme of prejudice is seen in numerous rulings stating that past litigation history – sometimes involving hundreds of suits – is of little relevance when deciding whether an instant lawsuit is meritorious, or that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. See Wilson v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., 2006 WL 213823, *3-*4 (E.D. Cal) (finding that fact of multiple previous lawsuit filings by plaintiff does not prove frivolousness in instant matter or that the case lacked merit); Doran v. Vicorp Restaurants, 2005 WL3577148, *3 (C.D. Cal 2005) (“Initially, the Court notes that Doran is not a vexatious litigant merely because he has filed 219 lawsuits”);

Factors Such as High Volume Lawsuit Filers and Inconsistent Statements in Former Lawsuits May Prevent Any Effort to Exclude Lawsuits

Even where the lawsuits that raised multiple claims were not deemed to be of any interest for a jury to consider. In a Los Angeles lawsuit the District Court was asked to consider multiple claims as being some form of vexatiousness. However, the Court rejected the argument in  Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant, 347 F.Supp.2d 860, 866 (C.D. Cal. 2004) by stating, “Clearly, raising multiple claims, by itself, is not unethical or vexatious.”

The Court in Molski looked at several other factors in that case to grant defendant’s motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant including, “However, it is consistent with an overall pattern of behavior that demonstrates Molski’s motivation is, ultimately, to extract a cash settlement.” The District Court also found, “Of  the hundreds of cases Molski has filed in this district, not one has ever been litigated on the merits.”

The Court implied the judicial system had become a tool in extracting money from a defendant: “Molski’s m.o. is clear: sue, settle, and move on to the next suit.” Id. at 366. Thus, absent being a plaintiff with a high volume history of filings and settlements, it appears prior lawsuits would be excluded. 

It should be noted that Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits are looked at skeptically by federal courts. In D’Lil v. Best Western Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2008) the Ninth Circuit stating that courts considering cases involving the ADA, “must be particularly cautious about affirming credibility determinations that rely on a plaintiff’s past ADA litigation” because these cases are typically pursued by a very small group of professional plaintiffs “who view themselves as champions of the disabled.”

Similarly, the appeals court in Gastineau v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., 137 F.3d 490, 496 (7th Cir.1998) found a couple of factors to be significant, “because the evidence was relevant to show a modus operandi of creating fraudulent claims, the other lawsuits were sufficiently similar and close enough in time, the prior lawsuits were evidenced by the pleadings…” (italics added) 

In Mathis v. Phillips Chevrolet, Inc., 269 F.3d 771, 776 (7th Cir. 2001), the Seventh Circuit quoted the trial court where it stated, “”[i]f the proposed evidence is designed primarily to show that the plaintiff is a litigious person or has a campaign against car dealerships, I shall forbid the use of that testimony”” and “”[I]t gives every impression of being an effort to show bad character on the part of the plaintiff. And the rules clearly specifically prohibit that….””

The Seventh Circuit found if the trial court had allowed the admission of prior lawsuits to be admitted, such “could also have given rise to the impermissible inference that, because [plaintiff] was given to filing frivolous lawsuits, the jury should not credit his claims in this suit.” 

The appellate court recited its own prior decision holding ,”the same evidence has legitimate and forbidden uses, when the introduction is valuable yet dangerous,” the district court has great discretion in determining whether to admit the evidence. United States v. Beasley, 809 F.2d 1273, 1278 (7th Cir.1987). The court in Mathis found the trial court did not rule contrary to established principles and affirmed the ruling. 

Other courts have adhered to the same reasoning when deciding to exclude lawsuits. The appeals court held in Raysor v. Port Authority, 768 F.2d 34, 40 (2d Cir. 1985) that, “excluding questions about past lawsuits because plaintiffs “litigiousness may have some slight probative value, but that value is outweighed by the substantial danger of jury bias against the chronic litigant,” Similarly, in Bryce v. Trace, Inc., 2008 WL 906142, *1 (W.D. Oka.2008), the district court found excluding evidence of prior lawsuit by plaintiff as irrelevant and prejudicial.

Conclusion

Darren Chaker finds navigating the exclusion of lawsuits as evidence in federal court is a challenge that demands a nuanced approach. Attorneys engaging in these practices must be skilled at demonstrating the inadmissibility of such evidence under the law, leveraging past legal decisions to bolster their positions, and ensuring that the trial remains a fair and just forum for determining the issues at hand.

For professionals in law, staying informed is paramount. Of course, nothing here or any where on this site should be construed as legal advice.

Darren Chaker Wins First Amendment Appeal

 

About The Author