## Facts

- Matthew Harrell, an African-American man, auditioned for a bassoonist position with the Royal Hawaiian Band, which was associated with the City and County of Honolulu.
- Harrell was not offered the bassoonist position and filed a race-discrimination lawsuit against the City and County of Honolulu.
- Before trial, the City filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude two items of evidence: a magazine article and a book addressing the historical role of African-Americans in Hawaiʻi.
- The district court partially granted the motion in limine, excluding the magazine article and excluding all but a single excerpt from the book.
- The district court reasoned that the excluded materials did not directly discuss the Royal Hawaiian Band or the time period in which Harrell auditioned.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the City.
- Harrell appealed, challenging the evidentiary exclusions and the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict.

## Issues

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion by excluding the magazine article and most of the book about African-American history in Hawaiʻi when those materials did not directly address the Royal Hawaiian Band or the relevant time period?
2. If the exclusion was error, was it sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal of the defense verdict?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of the City and County of Honolulu.
- The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the magazine article and most of the book because the materials did not directly concern the Band or the time frame of Harrell’s audition.
- The court left intact the jury’s defense verdict because it found no reversible evidentiary error.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of a district court’s evidentiary rulings, including rulings on motions in limine, is for abuse of discretion.
- Evidence must be relevant to facts of consequence in the case; general historical background that does not connect to the decisionmaker, the challenged decision, or the relevant time period may be excluded as having limited probative value.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, a court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as confusing the issues, misleading the jury, or wasting time.
- To obtain reversal based on an evidentiary ruling, an appellant must show not only error but also that the error affected the outcome (harmless-error principle).

## Conclusion

In *Harrell v. City and County of Honolulu*, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict for the City in a race-discrimination case arising from Harrell’s unsuccessful audition for a bassoonist position in the Royal Hawaiian Band, concluding that the district court acted within its discretion when it excluded a magazine article and most of a book about the historical role of African-Americans in Hawaiʻi because the materials did not directly address the Band or the relevant period and did not warrant disturbing the verdict.


Harrell v. City and County of Honolulu, 283 F. App’x 509 (2008)