Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35 et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
OSCAR BROWNFIELD, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-21-312-GLJ
)
CHEROKEE COUNTY SCHOOL 	)
DISTRICT NO. 35 a/k/a 	)
TAHLEQUAH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, )
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Cherokee County School District
No. 35 a/k/a Tahlequah Public Schools’ (“TPS”) motion in limine. 	For the reasons set
forth below, the Court finds that Defendant School District’s Omnibus Motion in Limine
[Docket No. 208] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Procedural History
As the procedural history of this case has been discussed extensively in other orders,
the Court provides a shorter summary here. Plaintiff filed this case on September 10, 2021,
in Oklahoma state court in Cherokee County, Case No. 21-CJ-98, against TPS and
Defendant Ashlock. Defendants removed the case to this Court on October 18, 2021 See
Docket Nos. 1-2. 	Plaintiff ultimately filed a Second Amended Complaint, which is now
the operative Complaint in this case. 	Several claims were dismissed early, then certain
other claims and parties were dismissed pursuant to various Defendants’ motions for
summary judgment. See Docket Nos. 181 & 192. As a result, only the following claims
6:21-cv-00312-GLJ Document 238 Filed in ED/OK on 05/13/26 Page 1 of 8

2
against TPS remain for trial: (1) Count I for Title IX retaliation related to Plaintiff’s
removal from the youth wrestling coach position and from the substitute teaching lists; and
(2) Count IV for Title VII retaliation related to Plaintiff’s April 21 application for the
coaching/teaching position.
ANALYSIS
I. 	Applicable Law
“Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine
rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority to
manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984) (citing Fed.
R. Evid. 103(c); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e)). As such, “[t]he purpose of a motion in limine
is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance
of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy
argument at, or interruption of, the trial.” 	Mendelsohn v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 587
F.Supp.2d 1201, 1208 (D. Kan. 2008), aff’d, 402 F. App’x 337 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotations omitted); see also Dry Clean Super Ctr., Inc. v. Kwik Indus., Inc., 2012 WL
503510 *4 (D. Colo. Feb. 15, 2012) (“The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the
Court to decide evidentiary issues in advance of trial to avoid delay and ensure an
evenhanded and expeditious trial.”). 	Motions in limine “are designed to narrow the
evidentiary issues for trial and to eliminate unnecessary trial interruptions.” Graves v. Dist.
of Columbia, 850 F.Supp.2d 6, 10 (D.D.C. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).
To exclude evidence on a motion in limine “the evidence must be inadmissible on
all potential grounds.” Ind. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio
6:21-cv-00312-GLJ Document 238 Filed in ED/OK on 05/13/26 Page 2 of 8

3
2004). “Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred
until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be
resolved in proper context.” Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Tech., Inc., 831 F.Supp. 1398,
1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). However, “the district court may change its ruling at any time for
whatever reason it deems appropriate.” Jones v. Stotts, 59 F.3d 143, 146 (10th Cir. 1995)
(citations omitted); see also Luce, 469 U.S. at 41 (“The ruling is subject to change when
the case unfolds . . . [E]ven if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the district judge is free,
in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling.”).
Alternatively, a judge may decline to rule on an issue raised via limine motion, preferring
to “await developments at trial before [so] ruling” to allow the “decision [to] be better
informed by the context, foundation, and relevance of the contested evidence within the
framework of the trial as a whole.” 	Graves, 850 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (quotation marks and
citations omitted).
II. 	TPS’ Moton in Limine
TPS moves for an order prohibiting Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s witnesses from directly
or indirectly referring to, inter alia: statements or details regarding Plaintiff’s Title IX
complaint and related matters; statements or details regarding various interactions of
Plaintiff and TPS employees; statements or evidence regarding dismissed parties or prior
motions or rulings in the case; and statements or evidence regarding Plaintiff’s Title VII
retaliation claim. See Docket No. 208. TPS also moves for an order of sequestration. Id.
6:21-cv-00312-GLJ Document 238 Filed in ED/OK on 05/13/26 Page 3 of 8

4
A. 	Statements or Evidence Regarding the Title IX Complaint and/or
Investigation
TPS seeks to exclude all evidence regarding Plaintiff’s Title IX complaint and the
subsequent investigation and findings. TPS argues that the parties stipulate that Plaintiff
filed a Title IX complaint and, therefore, any additional evidence regarding it is irrelevant
to Plaintiff’s remaining Title IX retaliation claims. See Docket No. 208, pp. 3-4. Plaintiff
objects to the blanket exclusion of all Title IX investigation evidence because it could be
admissible for impeachment or to demonstrate pretext on the retaliation claim. See Docket
No. 211, p. 1.
While the parties stipulate that Plaintiff filed a Title IX complaint and therefore, he
engaged in protected activity for purposes of his Title IX retaliation claim, which makes
evidence regarding the details of the Title IX complaint and subsequent investigation
irrelevant to the Title XI retaliation claim, it is less clear with respect to the Title VII
retaliation claim. Whether Plaintiff opposed any practice made an unlawful employment
practice under Title VII will be a jury question, absent a stipulation that Plaintiff engaged
in such protected activity, and, thus, Plaintiff’s Title IX complaint and the allegations
contained in Plaintiff’s complaint are relevant for the Title VII retaliation claim. Thus, at
this stage the Court cannot say all the evidence regarding Plaintiff’s Title XI complaint and
the subsequent investigation is “inadmissible on all potential grounds.” 	Ind. Ins. Co. v.
Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d at 846. 	Therefore, any decision as to the admissibility is
deferred to trial “[to] be better informed by the context, foundation, and relevance of the
contested evidence within the framework of the trial as a whole.” Graves, 850 F. Supp. 2d
6:21-cv-00312-GLJ Document 238 Filed in ED/OK on 05/13/26 Page 4 of 8

5
at 11 (quotation marks and citations omitted). 	Therefore, the Motion is denied as to this
issue.
B. 	Statements or Evidence Regarding the OCR and OCRE Complaints and
the Board Meeting
TPS seeks to exclude all evidence regarding Plaintiff’s Office of Civil Rights
(“OCR”) and the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement (“OCRE”) complaints and the “Board
Meeting.” 	See Docket No. 208, p. 5. 	In particular, TPS alleges Plaintiff may try to
introduce evidence regarding OCR correspondence to TPS, TPS’s response to the OCR
complaint, the OCRE Resolution Agreement, electronic communication regarding the
OCR and the OCRE complaints, and response to the OCRE complaint. 	Id. 	Although
Plaintiff indicates he does not intend to introduce the OCR/OCRE findings or conclusions,
he believes information regarding such topics is admissible for impeachment, to rebut
TPS’s non-retaliatory evidence and that the OCR and the OCRE proceedings concern
TPS’s retaliation of him. See Docket No. 211, p. 2. Plaintiff, however, does not set forth
what specific evidence he believes is admissible for any of these purposes in his Response.
As with the Title XI complaint, the Court cannot say at this point that the
OCR/OCRE complaints and the information contained therein are irrelevant for all
purposes. 	Again, absent a stipulation that Plaintiff engaged in protected activity for
purpose of his Title VII retaliation claim, evidence that Plaintiff filed complaints with OCR
and OCRE and the substance of those complaints is likely relevant for purposes of the issue
of whether Plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity. Therefore, TPS’s motion is denied
as to this issue.
6:21-cv-00312-GLJ Document 238 Filed in ED/OK on 05/13/26 Page 5 of 8

6
C. 	Statements or Evidence Regarding Alleged Conduct at the Football
Game
TPS seeks to exclude statements or evidence regarding events occurring at two
football games in which Plaintiff allegedly acted inappropriately towards TPS employees.
See Docket No. 208, p. 7. 	As a result of this alleged behavior, then TPS Superintendent
Leon Ashlock sent Plaintiff a written communication in October 2019 that Plaintiff refrain
from such behavior. Id. Although Plaintiff does not believe the communication constituted
a material adverse action, he argues evidence of the events surrounding the football games
is admissible for context, temporal proximity, retaliatory animus, impeachment, as well as
motive and credibility of witnesses. See Docket No. 211, p. 2.
In its March 5, 2026 Order, the Court previously found the October 2019 letter
regarding the alleged incidents at the football game was not a materially adverse action
against Plaintiff. 	See Docket No. 181, p. 11. 	Indeed, the precise events alleged to have
occurred at the football game are disputed and TPS later agreed to remove the letter from
its files as part of an agreement with Plaintiff to dismiss the OCR complaint. 	Moreover,
any evidence of these events risks devolving into a mini-trial of what did or did not actually
occur at the football games. 	Ultimately, these matters are not relevant to the alleged
retaliation of preventing Plaintiff from coaching youth wrestling, his removal from the
substitute teacher list or the denial of an interview for a TPS teaching/coaching position.
Therefore, TPS’s motion is granted as to this issue.
6:21-cv-00312-GLJ Document 238 Filed in ED/OK on 05/13/26 Page 6 of 8

7
D. 	Statements or Evidence Attacking Former or Current TPS Counsel
TPS seeks to exclude all statements attacking or suggesting TPS’s current or former
counsel acted improperly during the Title IX investigation. 	See Docket No. 208, p. 8.
Plaintiff agrees that such evidence should be excluded. Therefore, TPS’s motion is granted
as to this issue.
E. 	Evidence of Settlement or Settlement Negotiations
TPS seeks to exclude evidence of any offer of settlement or compromise. 	See
Docket No. 208, p. 8. Plaintiff agrees that such evidence should be excluded. Therefore,
based on Fed. R. Evid. 408, the motion is granted and any evidence of offers of settlement
or compromise is excluded.
F. 	Evidence of Pretrial Motions
TPS seeks to exclude evidence of any pretrial motions, proceedings or dismissals.
See Docket No. 208, p. 9. 	Plaintiff agrees that such evidence should be excluded.
Therefore, TPS’s motion is granted as to this issue.
G. 	Reference to Former Individual Defendants
TPS seeks to exclude any reference to or evidence of Leaon Ashlock, Matt Cloud,
Deann Mashburn, Natalie Cloud, or Kimberly Williams as former defendants in this case.
See Docket No. 208, p. 9. 	Plaintiff agrees that such evidence should be excluded.
Therefore, TPS’s motion is granted as to this issue.
H. 	Title VII Claim
TPS seeks to exclude any evidence as to Plaintiff’s Title VII claim because Plaintiff
cannot meet the prima facie elements of such a claim. 	See Docket No. 208, p.11. 	TPS
6:21-cv-00312-GLJ Document 238 Filed in ED/OK on 05/13/26 Page 7 of 8

8
argues that because Plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim arises out of his Title IX
complaint, this claim does not arise out of his employment or his participation in an
employment practice under Title VII. 	Id. 	Essentially, TPS is improperly seeking to
interpose a substantive motion to dismiss or for summary judgement as to Plaintiff’s Title
XII retaliation claim within its motion in limine. See, e.g., E.D. Okla. LCvR7.1(b) (each
motion shall be filed in a separate pleading) and 56.1 (absent leave, each party may file
only one motion for summary judgement). 	Therefore, TPS’s motion is denied as to this
issue.
I. 	Sequestration
TPS seeks to invoke the rule of sequestration pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 615. 	See
Docket No. 208, p. 13. 	Plaintiff agrees to sequestration. 	Therefore, pursuant to Fed. R.
Evid. 615, the motion is granted on this issue and all persons who may be called as a
witness, except for any party or party representative, is excluded from the courtroom during
the trial prior to any testimony of that witness and no witness may discuss his or her
testimony with any other potential witness.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, as set forth herein, Defendant School District’s Omnibus Motion in
Limine [Docket No. 208] is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of May, 2026.
GERALD L. JACKSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:21-cv-00312-GLJ Document 238 Filed in ED/OK on 05/13/26 Page 8 of 8