BOYD v. CITY OF WILMINGTON

SUE ROBINSON, District Judge

At Wilmington this 31^st day of October, 2007, having reviewed plaintiff's motion for a new trial and the papers submitted in connection therewith;

IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.I. 120) is denied, for the reasons that follow:

1. A trial court's discretion is broad when determining "the admissibility of evidence and whether a new trial should be granted based on an erroneous evidentiary ruling." Threadgill v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 928 F.2d 1366, 1370 (3d Cir. 1991). Before a court may grant a motion for a new trial, it must find (1) "that an error was made in the course of [the] trial"; and (2) that the error "was so prejudicial that refusal to grant a new trial would be inconsistent with substantial justice." Farra v. Stanley-Bostitch Inc., 838 F. Supp. 1021, 1026 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Such errors are those errors which "affect the substantial rights of the parties." Harkins v. Ford Motor Co., 437 F.2d 276, 278 (3d Cir. 1970).

2. Plaintiff argues that the court erred when it confined the cross examination of Lt. Mitch Rock to the scope of his testimony given under direct. On direct, counsel for defendant posed 17 questions (covered in just three pages of the trial transcript) concerning certain statements allegedly made by other witnesses. Lt. Rock was neither plaintiff's supervisor nor did he play a role in the promotional process to which the case was directed. Nevertheless, plaintiff asserts that Lt. Rock's credibility was so critical to his case that the court should have allowed an extensive cross examination relating to Lt. Rock's alleged conduct toward another Wilmington police officer, citing White v. Honeywell, 141 F.3d 1270 (8^th Cir. 1998), in support.

3. Under the circumstances at bar, the court concludes that no prejudicial error was made when plaintiff was precluded from pursuing his proffered cross-examination. In contrast to the situation in White, Lt. Rock did not play a role in the allegedly discriminatory conduct at bar. Moreover, the proffered impeachment material consists of untested allegations of a litigant in an unrelated employment discrimination case pending in this court. Given the minimal relevance of Lt. Rock's testimony, the introduction of such inflammatory impeachment would have created the risk of undue prejudice and of generating a mini-trial related to the credibility of a third party (Mr. Turner).