Partridge et al v. Benton Arkansas, City of et al

Filing 126

ORDER denying without prejudice 99 Motion in Limine; granting 100 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part without prejudice 101 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 1/26/2024. (csf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
PIPER PARTRIDGE, individually
and as next of kin to KEAGAN SCHWEIKLE
and as special administratrix of the ESTATE
of KEAGAN SCHWEIKLE; DOMINIC
SCHWEIKLE, individually as father and next
of kin to KEAGAN SCHWEIKLE
v.

PLAINTIFFS

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00460-BSM

CITY OF BENTON, ARKANSAS, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiffs’ first motion in limine [Doc. No. 99] to exclude evidence of Russell
Comstock’s guns is denied without prejudice and the parties are directed to approach the
bench before eliciting testimony or offering exhibits on this issue.
Plaintiffs’ second motion in limine [Doc. No. 100] to exclude evidence regarding
Piper Partridge’s 2022 arrest is not contested and is therefore granted. Defense counsel is
instructed to approach the bench if counsel believes plaintiffs have opened the door for this
evidence.
Defendants’ motion in limine [Doc. No. 101] is granted on evidence regarding (1)
dismissed claims, (2) deposition testimony of available witnesses, (8) expert testimony as to
legal conclusions, (11) expert witnesses’ reports, (12) expert testimony from any witness
who has not been timely and properly disclosed as an expert, (15) settlement negotiations,
(16) coverage by any third party, including the Municipal League, (17) golden rule
testimony, and (18) testimony and arguments regarding the general state of policing.

Plaintiffs’ counsel may seek reconsideration if they believe defendants have opened the door
for this evidence.
The motion in limine is denied without prejudice on (3) actions leading up to the
incident at issue, (4) technology issues, (5) character evidence regarding Officer Ellison, (6)
evidence of unconstitutional policies of the City of Benton, (7) testimony that the City of
Benton conducted more than one officer-involved shooting investigation, (8) expert
testimony regarding the credibility of eye witness testimony, pre-shooting conduct, city
policy violations and police canine operations, (9) evidence of subsequent law enforcement
training, (10) evidence that defendants disparaged Keagan Schweikle, (11) expert witnesses’
curriculum vitaes, and (14) testimony from law enforcement officers regarding Benton Police
Department training and investigation procedures.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2024.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2