Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sadid v. Idaho State University

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 5, 2013

HABIB SADID, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY, ARTHUR VAILAS, RICHARD JACOBSEN, GRAHAM GARNER, DAVID BEARD, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1 through X, whose true identities are presently unknown, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE STAFF MEMBERS INTRODUCTION

B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.

Pending before the Court are two motions in limine related to current and former ISU staff members. See Dkts. 145, 155. The Court has determined oral argument would not significantly assist the decisional process and will decide these motions without a hearing.

BACKGROUND

After the summary judgment rulings in this case, plaintiff Dr. Habib Sadid has one remaining claim against one defendant - defamation against Graham Garner. After ISU terminated Dr. Sadid, Mr. Garner told a reporter at the ISU student newspaper that, among other things, Dr. Sadid "presented a lot of safety issues." ISU Bengal Article, Dkt. 88-15, at 2. Dr. Sadid's defamation suit is based on these comments. One of Mr. Garner's affirmative defenses is that he is immune from suit under Idaho's Tort Claims Act. See Idaho Code § 6-904(3). Specifically, if Mr. Garner made these comments within the course and scope of his employment at ISU, and without malice or criminal intent, then he is immune from suit. See id.

ANALYSIS

I. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Testimony from Annie Havlicak Averitt, Ronda Mahl, and Priscilla Goldbeck (Dkt. 145)

Mr. Garner seeks to exclude testimony from three current and former ISU staff members - Annie Havlicak Averitt, Ronda Mahl, and Priscilla Goldbeck. Mr. Garner says there are a variety of reasons why Dr. Sadid should not be allowed to call them as trial witnesses. Most globally, he says their testimony is "simply irrelevant to the issues and should be excluded to avoid waste of time, burden to these witnesses, and confusion of the issues." Mot. Mem., Dkt. 145-1, at 2. Mr. Garner also says that he is sure to win on his statutory-immunity affirmative defense and "[f]or this reason alone Sadid should not be allowed to compel the staff members to sit through trial." Id. He further contends that nobody is disputing these women's "documented fear of Sadid as such facts are already established of record and uncontroverted." Id. at 2-3. Thus, he says, they should not be forced to endure testifying at trial. Garner also suggests that the Court should protect these women from "oppression" and from being "bullied and harassed" by Dr. Sadid by judicially noticing their deposition testimony and their grievance-hearing testimony. Reply, Dkt. 158, at 3. More specifically, Mr. Garner says Ms. Goldbeck suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome, apparently because Dr. Sadid interrupted "the direct examination of a couple of these staff members during the grievance proceedings with a verbal outburst toward them." Id. Finally, Mr. Garner says that their testimony would be cumulative.[1]

The Court is not persuaded by any of these arguments. The truth or falsity of Mr. Garner's statements will be an issue during trial. Among other things, Mr. Garner allegedly said Dr. Sadid "presented a lot of safety issues. There were many individuals who filed reports where they claimed Dr. Sadid threatened them.'" ISU Bengal Article, Dkt. 88-15 The reporter also indicated that "Garner... said that several of these people who had filed reports went before administrative committees, detailing the threats." Id.

Apparently, when he made his comments, Mr. Garner was relying, in part, on accounts of Averitt's, Goldbeck's and Mahl's interactions with Dr. Sadid or their observations of Dr. Sadid. There is an issue as to whether Mr. Garner exaggerated the danger posed by Dr. Sadid's conduct when he spoke to the reporter. The Court explained this point in its summary-judgment ruling as follows:

The key problem with Garner's statements is that if they are read favorably to the plaintiff, they imply that Dr. Sadid directly threatened people and that these direct threats are what triggered his termination. But there is no evidence that Dr. Sadid was fired based on his direct threats to anyone. To be sure, there is evidence that his firing was partly based on the fact that some women felt threatened by observing Dr. Sadid's interactions with others, as well as his demeanor. For example, as detailed above, one female staff member said she experienced "severe anxiety and fear of imminent violence" after witnessing Dr. Sadid yelling at Dean Jacobsen during an argument. See Dkt. 88-13, ¶ 1, at 2; Dkt. 92, Ex. I at 17.
But it is arguably an untruthful overstatement to say that "many individuals" filed reports claiming Dr. Sadid threatened them, and that these threats are what triggered Dr. Sadid's firing. In other words, saying or implying that someone directly threatened other people is different from saying that a person generally feels threatened by another's behavior. Consequently, the jury will have to determine whether Garner's statements are "substantially accurate."

May 12, 2013 Decision, Dkt. 135, at 11-12. Dr. Sadid is entitled to put on evidence related to these women's interactions with him, including, for example, whether they reported that he had threatened them.

II. Plaintiff's Motion to Designate Certain Witnesses as Hostile (Dkt. 155)

Dr. Sadid requests an order designating various witnesses as hostile under Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c), including the following - all of whom ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.