Plaintiff DAVID JOHNSON (“Plaintiff”) by his counsel hereby responds to Defendant
Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Departments’ Motion in Limine as follows:
On [Date of Motion] Defendant Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Department
(Defendant Steven) through defense counsel Prashant Kolluri filed a Motion in Limine. In the
said Motion, Defendant Steven seeks to have the Court allow all evidence in support of its initial
Motion for Summary Judgment and preventing Plaintiff’s witnesses from producing or adducing
evidence to impeach the employees testifying on behalf of Defendant Agency. [Is that what the
Motion actually seeks?]
As Plaintiff will demonstrate in this response, the Motion by Defendant Steven is an
unlawful attempt to defeat the judicial process of this Honorable Court, violate Plaintiff’s right to
fair hearing and ultimately, defeat Plaintiff’s claim based on technicalities.
1. Plaintiff should not be precluded from adducing
The effect of the orders sought by Defendant Steven would be to suppress the evidence of
Plaintiff’s intended witnesses so as to ensure that Plaintiff does not impeach the evidence of
Defendant’s witnesses who are also employees of the Department of the Treasury.
Defendant Steven’s ploy is to have witnesses stick only to the story told by Defendant
Agency and not fully comply with the Trial Subpoena to produce all evidence including that
whose effect would be to impeach the employees testifying on behalf of
Defendants. There is clear evidence that Defendant Steven’s counsel has been tampering with
witnesses in this matter.
It is trite law that in deciding questions as to whether evidence ought to be excluded in a
proceeding, courts ought to address themselves on the value of that evidence. Hence, under
Rules 401 and 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence that makes the existence of any
fact [that is of consequence] more or less probable—is admissible unless the Rules provide
otherwise. Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 687 (1988).
In this case, the evidence sought to be excluded by Defendant is evidence relevant to the
issues raised by Plaintiff’s claim. Its probative value is high and Defendant Steven’s ploy is to
ensure that the jury does not have the opportunity to asses and evaluate that evidence, hence the
Motion in Limine.
Plaintiff invites the Court to consider the facts at issue, the conduct of Defendant Steven
to understand the motive behind the Motion in Limine. It is Plaintiff’s humble submission that
the Motion does not disclose any ground for the exclusion of the evidence sought by the Motion.
Clear and convincing evidence on the record establishes fraud on the court and tampering
with the Witnesses by defense counsel Prashant Kolluri and the attempts to obstruct the fact
finder’s fair adjudication of the merits constituting grounds for the entry of a default judgment in
favor of Plaintiff against Defendant Agency according to the precedent of this Honorable Court.
2. The probative value of the challenged evidence will not be substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
The mainstay of Defendant Steven’s Motion in Limine is that introduction of the
challenged evidence will or could prejudice Defendants. In response, Plaintiff avers that no
prejudice will be suffered by Defendants should the challenged evidence be heard by the Jury in
US Courts have time and again stated and established that although relevant evidence is
inherently prejudicial, the prejudice arising from such relevant evidence becomes unfair if it
outweighs the probative value of the evidence. United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1172
(9th Cir. 2000)
There is no doubt that the evidence Defendant Steven seeks to exclude is of high
probative value. At the same time, it is probable that the evidence could prejudice Defendants.
But that prejudice would not be unfair nor unlawful as it does not outweigh the probative value.
Therefore, the Court-as a fact finder-should not let the Motion in Limine succeed as that
would be gross unfairness to Plaintiff and miscarriage of justice. It would deny the Jury the
chance to hear viva voce evidence on the main facts in issue. Be that as it may, Defendants have
ignored the fact that they may challenge the evidence in dispute through cross examination and
by introducing their own witnesses with a view to rebutting the evidential matters raised.
From the foregoing, Defendant Steven’s Motion in Limine should be denied because it
has not disclosed any legal grounds for such exclusion. Specifically, Defendant Steven has not
demonstrated a) the exact information sought to be excluded b) That the evidence sought to be
excluded is not relevant and c) That the evidence was obtained illegally and d) That unfair
prejudice would be occasioned by production of the evidence.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court deny Defendant Steven’s
Motions in Limine in its entirety.
CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
Plaintiff, Arthur Ehlrich, Defendant Agency, and defense counsel Prashant Kolluri have been
unable to reach an agreement on the fraud upon the court or tampering with Witnesses by
defense counsel Prashant Kolluri without intervention of the district court.
DATED: June 3, 2019 respectfully submitted,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 14, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, using the ECF system which will send notification and
a copy of such filing to all parties of record.
901 East 56th Street, 1C
Brooklyn, NY 11234 332-877-3361