United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE
TANYA
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on a Motion in Limine filed by
Defendants William Russell, Thomas Williams, Devon Clark, and
Jeremy Street (“Defendants”). (Filing No. 157.)
The Motion asks the Court to rule on various evidentiary
issues in anticipation of the trial scheduled to begin on
February 3, 2020. Plaintiff Lamone Lauderdale
(“Lauderdale”) did not respond to the Motion. For
the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is
granted in part and denied in part.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
facts of this case are set forth at length in the Court's
Entry on Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
(SeeFiling 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.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[J]udges
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.
III.
DISCUSSION
Defendants
ask the Court to rule on the admissibility of ten categories
of evidence: (1) evidence related to use of force incidents
by any Defendants against individuals other than Lauderdale;
(2) evidence related to high-profile allegations of law
enforcement misconduct, strained law enforcement-community
relationships, or how prisons operate; (3) evidence related
to the lack of surveillance footage of the use of force
incidents Lauderdale alleges; (4) evidence relating to
lawsuits filed against the Marion County Sheriff's Office
(“MCSO”); (5) evidence relating to any other
lawsuits filed against any Defendant; (6) expert testimony
from Lauderdale's medical witnesses; (7) witnesses or
exhibits that were not included on Lauderdale's
preliminary witness and exhibit lists; (8) evidence related
to Defendants' violation of any MCSO policy, procedure,
rule, or regulation; (9) argument that Defendants are
indemnified by the MCSO or the City of Indianapolis; and (10)
argument that the jury should “punish” the
Defendants. (Filing No. 157.)
1.
Use of Force Incidents Against Other
Individuals
Defendants
ask the Court to “prohibit any reference, evidence, or
testimony relating to use of force incidents by any Defendant
against any other individuals that do not include any
Defendants' alleged uses of force at issue in this
case.” (Filing No. 157 at 2-3.) The Court agrees that
any such evidence is irrelevant and therefore excluded by
Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Such evidence would also be
impermissible character evidence properly excluded under
Fed.R.Evid. 404. Absent argument to the contrary, the Court
grants the motion in limine on the issue of
reference to any other use of force incidents.
2.
Allegations of Law Enforcement Misconduct or Strained Law
Enforcement-Community Relationships
Defendants
assert that “[t]he Court should prohibit any reference,
evidence, or testimony relating to high-profile allegations
of law enforcement misconduct; strained law
enforcement-community relationships; or how prisons
operate.” (Filing No. 157 at 3-4.) They argue that this
case “must be decided on the evidence presented at
trial and not based on media reports or social media posts
about other incidents or biases fueled by a party's
rhetoric.” Id. at 4. Although there is no
indication that Lauderdale intends to tie this case to other
instances of alleged law enforcement misconduct or problems
in other prisons, this type of evidence could confuse the
jury, delay the trial, and mislead the jury to regard the
conduct of Defendants in this case to conduct of others. See
Duran v. Town of Cicero, 653 F.3d 632, 645 (7th Cir.
2011) (upholding exclusion of evidence of misconduct
complaints against officer in excessive-force case because
introduction “risked creating a sideshow and sending
the trial off track”); Treece v. Hochstetler,
213 F.3d 360, 363-64 (7th Cir. 2000) (upholding exclusion of
officer's past misconduct because conduct not
sufficiently similar to permit inference of pattern).
Defendants' Motion in Limine is granted
on this issue and such evidence is excluded pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and Rule 402, which govern the
inadmissibility of irrelevant evidence, and Rule 403, which
governs the exclusion of unfairly prejudicial evidence.
3.
Lack of Surveillance Footage
Defendants
assert that the “[p]laintiff, his attorneys, and
witnesses should be precluded from making any suggestion that
the jury should make a negative inference from the lack of
… video footage” of the use of force incidents
alleged in Lauderdale's complaint. (Filing No. 157 at 6.)
No evidence indicates Defendants intentionally or negligently
mishandled or erased any video footage of these alleged
incidents. Any reference to the lack of such footage is both
irrelevant and ...