United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
Honorable Ronald E. Bush Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge.
decision resolves Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Requesting
the Court to Take Judicial Notice (Dkt. 86).
Jun Yu alleges that Defendant Idaho State University
deliberately and unlawfully discriminated against him due to
his national origin in violation of Title VI of the 1964
Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et. seq. FAC
¶ 353 (Dkt. 41). In this motion, Plaintiff requests that
the Court take judicial notice of public and official
domestic records pertaining to whether Defendant received
federal funds during the period relevant to the events at
issue in this lawsuit. (Dkt. 86.)
Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2) allows a court to take judicial
notice of adjudicative facts not subject to reasonable
dispute. Most commonly, judicial notice occurs with
adjudicative facts that can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned. The court may take judicial notice on its own,
but it must do so “if a party requests it and the court
is supplied with the necessary information.” F.R.E.
201(c)(2). In civil cases, the court must instruct the jury
to accept the noticed fact as conclusive. F.R.E. 201(f).
Under Rule 201, a court may take judicial notice of
undisputed matters of public record. Lee v. City of Los
Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689-690 (9th Cir. 2001).
alleges that Defendant violated Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act. FAC ¶¶ 351- 353 (Dkt. 41.) To prevail at
trial, Plaintiff must prove, among other things, that he has
a prima facie claim of Title VI discrimination. To prove
Title VI discrimination, Plaintiff must show (1) he was
“subjected to discrimination” due to “race,
color, or national origin, ” (2) by a “program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42
U.S.C. § 2000d. The term “program or
activity” means “all of the operations of
…. [a] college, university, or other postsecondary
institution, or a public system of higher education.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000d-4a(2)(A). Under this definition,
“entire entities receiving federal funds - whether
governmental entities, school systems, or universities - must
comply with Title VI, rather than just the particular program
or activity that actually receives the funds.”
Grimes v. Superior Home Health Care of Middle Tenn.,
Inc., 929 F.Supp. 1088, 1091-1092 (M.D. Tenn. June 19,
1996). Thus, to make out his prima facie claim of Title VI
discrimination, Plaintiff must show that Idaho State
University, rather than merely the ISU Graduate School or the
ISU Department of Psychology, received federal financial
assistance at the relevant times.
instant motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial
notice that Defendant “has been a recipient of federal
funds at all times relevant” to his claims (apparently
seeking to prove the second element of his prima facie Title
VI claim). Plf.'s Mot. in Limine Requesting Judicial
Notice 1 (Dkt. 86). To support this request, Plaintiff
directs the Court to “public and official domestic
records … that prove that Defendant received federal
funds from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2014.”
Id. at 2.
motion relies upon excerpts from various sources: The Idaho
Fiscal Sourcebook, 2017 Edition (Dkt. 86-2) and the Idaho
2018 Legislative Budget Book (Dkt. 86-3), both published by
the Legislative Services Office, Budget & Policy
Analysis; Idaho State University Financial Statements for the
Years Ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 and Independent
Auditors' Report (Dkt. 86-4); Idaho State University
Annual Financial Report FY11 (Dkt. 86-5); Idaho State
University FY12 Annual Financial Statements (Dkt. 86-6);
Idaho State University FY13 Annual Financial Statements (Dkt.
86-7); and Idaho State University FY14 Annual Financial
Statements (Dkt. 86-8).
contends that these documents are all public records. He
contends that such records establish that Defendant received
federal funds during the period from July 1, 2007 through
June 30, 2014. Indeed, the various financial statements each
show Defendant received federal funds as revenues in the form
of grants, contracts, or awards during the specific period.
says that the motion (and, therefore, the relief it seeks) is
unnecessary. (Dkt. 109). Defendant admitted receiving federal
funds in its Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint. (Dkt. 48.) Accordingly, Defendant argues, taking
judicial notice of the documents Plaintiff submitted serves
no purpose because there is no dispute that Defendant
received federal funds.
reply, Plaintiff says for the first time that he seeks an
order taking judicial notice that Defendant received federal
financial assistance during all relevant times, rather than
merely at the point in time he filed his First Amended
Complaint or the moment at which Defendant filed its Answer.
(Dkt. 120.) A closer review does reveal that Plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint alleged that Defendant
“receives” federal financial assistance rather
than alleging that Defendant “did receive” such
assistance during a particular time frame, thus creating an
arguable ambiguity. FAC ¶¶ 3, 345 (Dkt. 41).
However, Defendant does not appear to be attempting to argue
or embrace any such ambiguity in defending against Plaintiffs
discrimination claim. To the contrary, Defendant says flatly
and clearly that there is no dispute that “the
Defendant received federal funding at all times relevant to
the Plaintiffs claims.” (Dkt. 109 at 2.)
Plaintiff has shown that judicial notice is appropriate as to
Plaintiffs submissions noted above because they are public
records not subject to reasonable dispute. Furthermore, the
Court is satisfied based on such documents that judicial
notice is appropriate as to the element of Count One of
Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint requiring that a Title VI
defendant be a “program or activity receiving ...