United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER RE PARTIES' CROSS-MOTIONS IN LIMINE (ECF
NO. 29, 30, 31, 32)
GEORGE
CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On
August 5, 2019, the court held a hearing on the parties'
cross-motions in limine. For the reasons stated on
the record, IT IS ORDERED that:
A.
Plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude
Defendants' proposed expert Steven Ashley from testifying
(ECF No. 29) is DENIED AS MOOT per Defendants'
stipulation that they will not be calling him as a witness.
B.
Plaintiff's motion in limine to prohibit
statements, arguments, testimony, and introduction of
evidence of plaintiff's social media, police reports,
activity logs, schedules, notes, documentation from date of
incident and alleged investigation by City of Detroit
including content of video and audio tapes and recorded
statements of Plaintiff and Rondell Miller (ECF No. 30) is
DENIED.
C.
Plaintiff's motion in limine requesting
sanctions for spoliation of evidence including an adverse
inference instruction (ECF No. 31) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The court notes that the record is not fully
developed as to the handling of the video evidence, and the
court may revisit its decision depending on how the proofs
are admitted at trial, and may require an evidentiary
hearing.
D.
Defendants' motion in limine (ECF No. 32) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.
Defendants' motion in limine to exclude
reference to Officer representation and indemnification is
GRANTED.
2.
Defendants' motion in limine to exclude
reference to newspaper articles and other media reports or
television broadcasts regarding unrelated incidents involving
allegations of police misconduct, consent decree, or
police/public relations or perceptions generally is TAKEN
UNDER ADVISEMENT pending the parties working together to
tailor the television broadcast video so that the evidence
pertaining solely to the issue of identification may be
presented, but the prejudicial nature of the claimed
excessive force in other incidents be sanitized. It is
possible that Defendants' suggestion that a screen shot
from the television broadcast be used may satisfy the
court's concerns that while the issue of identification
is at stake, the prejudicial nature of the broadcasts is very
high.
3.
Defendants' motion in limine to exclude
reference to past or subsequent officer misconduct, citizen
complaints, disciplinary history, misconduct investigations
and administrative, legislative or judicial hearing
transcripts or recordings, and findings or judgments is TAKEN
UNDER ADVISEMENT. The court recognizes that some evidence may
be relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), but the
risk is great that jurors will improperly assess this
evidence to show that Defendants acted in conformity with
their alleged past conduct. In reaching a final determination
as to whether the evidence is admissible, the court will
consider a possible curative instruction, and at the same
time, the court will entertain proposals for tailoring the
evidence to cover permissible reasons for admitting the
evidence under Rule 404(b), while trying to minimize the
prejudicial effect.
4.
Defendants' motion in limine to exclude
reference to race relations and law enforcement is TAKEN
UNDER ADVISEMENT.
5.
Defendants' motion in limine regarding
statements to law enforcement is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.
6.
Defendants' motion in limine regarding the
location of Plaintiff's arrest is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
7.
Defendants' motion in limine to exclude expert
witness testimony is DENIED as Plaintiff's treating
physicians may testify without producing an expert report,
but specific objections as to the scope of that testimony may
be addressed at trial depending on how the proofs are
presented.
8.
Defendants' motion in limine to exclude punitive
...