Scott v. Hobbs et al

Filing 185

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 175 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/10/2015. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION DEVERICK SCOTT ADC #131042 PLAINTIFF No. 2:12-cv-229-DPM v. TYRONE WASHINGTON, Lt., East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; ROOSEVELT BARDEN, Officer, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; JANICE BOGAN-HALL, Officer, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; and TIFFANY SPARKMAN, Officer, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC DEFENDANTS ORDER Here are the Court's rulings on Defendants' motion in limine, NQ 175. A. Granted as modified. We're not going to try the internal affairs investigation. Any party's inconsistent statement during the investigation is admissible. B. Granted as modified. Other incidents are out, except that Scott may offer evidence of the Washington/Brooks encounter as an alleged cause of the Washington/Scott encounter. If Scott can't show any causal relationship, the Court will strike and disregard this evidence. C. Granted as agreed on other lawsuits. D. Granted on related disciplinary actions. E. Granted as agreed on other disciplinary actions. F. Granted as agreed on any "missing" videos. G. Granted on force policies. They're marginally relevant on the constitutional issues; but they would open the door to the internal investigation, which would confuse the issues. H. Denied on witnesses now identified or as needed to implement the Court's rulings. I. Granted as modified. Scott's grievances related to this suit come in; all others are out. Motion, N2 175, granted in part and denied in part. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?