Mann v. Towne et al

Filing 64

ORDER directing as follows: (1) The Defendants' Motion in Limine (Doc. # 49 ) is DENIED; (2) The Defendants' Objections to exhibits are sustained in part and overruled in part to the following extent: (a) Plaintiff's Exhibit 1--the obj ection is SUSTAINED; (b) Plaintiff's Exhibits 2 and 3--the objection is SUSTAINED to the extent that the Plaintiff will have to lay a foundation of relevance at trial; (c) Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 and 5--the objection is SUSTAINED to the extent that the Plaintiff will have to lay a foundation of relevance at trial; (d) The objections to Plaintiff's Exhibits 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are SUSTAINED. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/17/14. (scn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION

RANDALL E. MANN, an individual,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JASON C. TOWNE, in his individual capacity,
CHRIS MCCRANE, in his individual capacity,
and CITY OF DADEVILLE, ALABAMA,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:13cv668-WHA
(wo)

ORDER

This case is before the court on a Motion in Limine (Doc. #49) and Objections to the
Plaintiff’s Exhibit List (Doc. #48) filed by the Defendants.
The Defendants move in limine to prohibit the Plaintiff from presenting any testimony that
he has been subjected to public ridicule or humiliation, stating that such evidence would be based
on inadmissible hearsay and would also contradict the Plaintiff’s deposition testimony.
The Plaintiff responds that testimonial evidence from the Plaintiff regarding his feelings of
humiliation are directly related to his damages and are not hearsay. The Plaintiff argues that if the
Defendants feel that the testimony contradicts his testimony, he can be cross-examined on that
issue.
The court has reviewed the deposition excerpt provided. Mann states that people whose
names he does not know made fun of him for being strip searched. He also states that the account
was in the newspaper because he filed a lawsuit. That testimony does not appear to be
1

inconsistent with a contention that he was subject to ridicule because of the search. As to the
hearsay objection, the Plaintiff does not appear to be offering evidence of out of court statements
for the truth of the matter asserted, but instead is offering the statements to show the impact that
they had on the Plaintiff for purposes of proving damages. See Fed. R. Evid. 801.
The Defendants have also objected to various exhibits offered by the Plaintiff.
Specifically, the Defendants have objected to Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and
13.
As to Exhibits 1-5, the Defendants rely on Rules 402 and 403 and state that the exhibits are
not relevant under the court’s ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment. Although required to
furnish the exhibits by the Scheduling Order (Doc. #13, p.3) the Plaintiff only responds with
argument as to the objections and does not attach copies of the exhibits. In the interest of time, the
court will endeavor to evaluate the objections based on their descriptions, but the Plaintiff is
cautioned to comply with court orders in the future.
The Plaintiff seeks to admit the First Amended Complaint and Answer, stating that they are
permitted for use at trial by the Pretrial Order. The Pretrial Order, however, takes the place of the
pleadings. State Treasurer of the State of Michigan v. Barry, 168 F.3d 8, 9-10 (11th Cir. 1999).
Furthermore, the Plaintiff has shown no admissible basis for any pleading. Therefore, the
objection is due to be sustained.
Exhibit 2 is the Alabama Uniform Arrest Report prepared by Jason Towne and Exhibit 3 is
the ticket and complaint prepared by Jason Towne. The Plaintiff points out that the Defendants
have also offered the arrest report, and have argued in response to an objection from the Plaintiff
that it is reflective of the Defendant’s actions and therefore should be permitted. As to the ticket
2

and complaint, the Plaintiff says that the ticket relates to the incident in question.
The court does not see the relevance of the arrest report, ticket, and complaint at this point.
If a party chooses to admit the report at trial, or the ticket and complaint, that party will have to lay
a foundation for its relevance at trial. The Plaintiff’s objection on hearsay grounds is addressed in
a separate order.
Exhibit 4 is the Dadeville Police Department Search and Seizure Policy and Exhibit 5 is the
Field Interview/Protective Frisk Policy. The City of Dadeville is proceeding to trial on the claim
that its agents lacked arguable reasonable suspicion, so that the officer is not entitled to
discretionary or State-agent immunity, and the City can be held liable for the negligence of the
officers. The policies do not appear at this point to be relevant to that inquiry. If the Plaintiff
chooses to offer the policies at trial, he will first have to lay a foundation for their relevance.
Exhibits 8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 on the Plaintiff’s list are general designations of
categories of documents, including documents listed by the Defendants. Such listings do not
comply with the Scheduling Order, which requires exhibits to be exchanged and premarked for
identification. The objection to general categories of evidence will be sustained.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. #49) is DENIED.

2.

The Defendants’ Objections to exhibits are sustained in part and overruled in part to
the following extent:
a.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1--the objection is SUSTAINED.

b.

Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2 and 3--the objection is SUSTAINED to the extent that the
Plaintiff will have to lay a foundation of relevance at trial.
3

c.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 and 5--the objection is SUSTAINED to the extent that the
Plaintiff will have to lay a foundation of relevance at trial.

d. The objections to Plaintiff’s Exhibits 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are
SUSTAINED.

Done this 17th day of September, 2014.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4