United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO
EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESSES
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Motion in Limine to
Exclude Plaintiff's Experts filed by Defendants William
Russell, Thomas Williams, Devon Clark, and Jeremy Street
(“Defendants”). (Filing No. 143.)
Plaintiff Lamone Lauderdale (“Lauderdale”) has
disclosed four witnesses that he intends to qualify as
experts at trial. (Filing No. 143-1.) Defendants ask
the Court to exclude those experts from testifying at trial.
For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is
facts of this case are set forth at length in the Court's
Entry on Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
(Filing No. 139.) In summary, while incarcerated in
the Marion County Jail, Lauderdale alleges he was assaulted
by the Defendants, all of whom are Marion County Sheriff
Deputies, and that he was retaliated against and denied
proper medical treatment. This matter is scheduled for trial
by jury on February 3, 2020 on Lauderdale's claims of
excessive force and deliberate indifference.
have broad discretion in ruling on evidentiary questions
during trial or before on motions in limine.”
Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664
(7th Cir. 2002). The court excludes evidence on a motion
in limine only if the evidence clearly is not
admissible for any purposes. See Hawthorne Partners v.
AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400
(N.D. Ill. 1993). Unless evidence meets this exacting
standard, evidentiary rulings must be deferred until trial so
questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice may be
resolved in context. Id. at 1400-01. Moreover,
denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily
mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion is
admissible; rather, it only means that, at the pretrial
stage, the court is unable to determine whether the evidence
should be excluded. Id. at 1401.
Rule of Evidence 702 governs testimony of expert witnesses.
An expert may testify regarding the ultimate issue in a case.
Fed.R.Evid. 704(a). Furthermore, an expert can base her
opinion on inadmissible evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 703. However,
“expert testimony as to legal conclusions that will
determine the outcome of the case is inadmissible.”
Good Shepherd Manor Found., Inc. v. City of
Momence, 323 F.3d 557, 564 (7th Cir. 2003).
the gatekeeping requirement set forth in Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993),
“the district court has a duty to ensure that expert
testimony offered under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is both
relevant and reliable.” Jenkins v. Bartlett,
487 F.3d 482, 488-89 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Kumho Tire
Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999)).
“Whether proposed expert testimony is sufficiently
reliable under Rule 702 is dependent upon the facts and
circumstances of the particular case.” Id. at
489. The court is given “latitude in determining not
only how to measure the reliability of the proposed expert
testimony but also whether the testimony is, in fact,
reliable.” Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 616
(7th Cir. 2010) (citing Jenkins, 487 F.3d at 489).
determining reliability, the court will “consider the
proposed expert's full range of experience and training
in the subject area, as well as the methodology used to
arrive at a particular conclusion.” Id.
Additionally, the district court must determine whether the
proposed expert testimony will assist the trier of fact in
determining a fact in issue or understanding the evidence.
Chapman v. Maytag Corp., 297 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir.
2002). “Determinations on admissibility should not
supplant the adversarial process; ‘shaky' expert
testimony may be admissible, assailable by its opponents
through cross-examination.” Gayton, 593 F.3d
Vigorous cross examination, presentation of contrary evidence
and careful jury instructions … are the traditional
and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible
evidence. The rejections of expert testimony is the exception
rather than the rule, and the trial court's role as
gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a replacement for the
Richman v. Sheahan, 415 F.Supp.2d 929, 934 (N.D.
Ill. 2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
April 15, 2019, Lauderdale served the Defendants with his
expert disclosure, naming four expert witnesses. (Filing
No. 143-1.) All four are medical professionals who
personally treated Lauderdale prior to, during, or after his
incarceration. Defendants argue that Lauderdale failed to
comply with the disclosure requirements set forth in Rule
26(a)(2), and thus the Court should bar the witnesses from
giving expert testimony at trial. (Filing No. 144.)
Defendants do not dispute that the four witnesses-Donna J.
Purviance, NP; Mytrice E. Macon, MD; Kristin Roth, DPT; and
Dr. Person-would be appropriate fact witnesses, they only
object to the witnesses offering expert medical testimony.
Id. at 3 (n. 1).
Federal Rule of ...