Coleman v. Danforth, et al

Filing 192

ORDER re 158 Motion in Limine. 185 Motion in Limine is granted in part and denied in part, or deferred until trial in accordance with the terms of this Order. Defendants' and Plaintiff's objections to trial exhibits (doc. nos. 182-83) are sustained in part, overruled in part, or deferred until trial in accordance with the terms of this Order. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 09/18/2019. (thb)

u3.niSTk;cT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION

COREY LEWIS COLEMAN,

*

'

21)!9SEPi8 PH3--56
r, rr?y

5

Plaintiff,

Sj.p

*
"k

V.

*

CV 316-095

5

WILLIAM DANFORTH, et al.,

*
•*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

This case came before the Court for a pretrial conference on
September 16, 2019 in Dublin, Georgia.

Argument was heard on a

number of issues raised in the proposed pretrial order, motions in

limine (doc. no. 185), and objections to trial exhibits (doc. nos.
182-83).

The oral rulings on these issues are expressed below as

an order of the Court:
I.

Preface

At the outset, I note that many of Defendants' motions in
limine

ask

Evidence.

that

I

ministerially

apply

the

Federal

Rules

of

That is, Defendants have asked for a pretrial ruling on

the admissibility of matters that, if introduced at trial, would
clearly be inadmissible under the law.

Counsel for Defendants are expected to adhere to the highest
standard of professionalism and ethics in the trial of the case

and

to

be

well-versed

in

the

evidentiary

rules

of

law.

Accordingly,

to

the

extent

that

a

motion

in

limine

seeks

application of the Federal Rules of Evidence in a customary and
obvious way, such motion in limine is moot.

If an issue related

to a motion in limine mooted herein arises at trial, I will rule

upon it at that time.
II.

Defendants' Motions in Limine

Defendants

William

Danforth,

Karen

Jordan-Thomas,

Kenneth

Bell, Rickey Wilcox, Sam Zanders, Rodney McCloud, and Thomas Taylor
filed ten motions in limine.

(Doc. No. 185.)

Motions one through

six (id. at 3-8) are MOOT for the reasons stated in the preface of
this Order.

In

motion

seven.

Defendants

seek

to

exclude

evidence

of

Defendants' administrative reporting of the July 15, 2013 incident
(the ''Incident").

(Id. at 9.)

If any failure to report the

Incident is evidence of concealment of misconduct, I will rule on

the evidence when it is presented. Defendants' seventh motion in
limine is DEFERRED UNTIL TRIAL.

In motion eight. Defendants seek to exclude any reference to
Plaintiff's allegations of evidence spoliation.

(Id. at 10.)

Plaintiff's counsel is not planning to present any evidence of

spoliation

and

will

warn

her

client

to

avoid

references

to

spoliation. Defendants' eight motion in limine is MOOT.
In motion nine. Defendants seek to exclude evidence of any

lack of disciplinary action against other inmates involved in the

Incident.

(Id. at 11.)

Evidence of failure to discipline will be

permitted only for cross-examination

and

impeachment purposes.

Defendants' ninth motion in limine is GRANTED IN PART.

In

motion

ten,

Defendants

seek

to

exclude

evidence

of

Plaintiff's claims in this case that were previously dismissed.
(Id. at 12.)

This motion is GRANTED.

References to the dismissed

claims may be allowed on cross-examination, depending upon the
circumstances.

III. Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits

Defendants
exhibits.

made

nine

objections

to

Plaintiff's

trial

(Doc. No. 182.)

Defendants object to Plaintiff's exhibits one through twentyeight,

which

are

audio

interviews

investigation of the Incident.

conducted

(Id. at 1-2.)

that the exhibits are hearsay and irrelevant.

during

an

Defendants argue

Plaintiff agreed to

use these audio interviews for impeachment purposes only.

It is

so ordered.

Defendants object to Plaintiff's exhibit 29, which is the
Georgia

Department

of

Corrections'

procedure for ''POST Orders."

C'GDC")

(Id. at 2.)

standard

operating

Defendants argue that

the policy is exempt from disclosure and presents a security threat
to GDC operations.

Before any mention of such materials in the

presence of the jury. Plaintiff must alert the Court and specify
the part of the policy to be offered and its purpose.

Defendants object to Plaintiff's exhibit 31, the GDC's policy
regarding Islamic worship in prisons, arguing that the policy is
irrelevant.

(Id. at 2-3.)

Parts of the policy may be admitted to

the extent they are relevant to a potential violation occurring
during the Incident.

Defendants object to exhibit 32, Plaintiff's administrative

grievance, as duplicative of anticipated testimony and hearsay.
(Id. at 3.)

This exhibit may be used only to the extent it is

offered and it qualifies as a prior consistent statement which
serves to rebut an inference of recent fabrication.

Defendants object to exhibits 33, 34, and 35 — Plaintiff's

appeal of his administrative grievance, a response to the appeal,
and Defendant Danforth's response to the grievance — as hearsay
and irrelevant.

(Id. at 3-4.)

These exhibits may be used only

for impeachment purposes.

Defendants object to exhibit 36, the GDC's policy regarding

administrative segregation, arguing that it is irrelevant.
at

4.)

This

exhibit

may

be

used

only

to

show

a

(Id.

potential

inconsistency with the policy during the Incident and only upon

proper foundation of such inconsistency.
Defendants object to exhibit 37, the GDC's policy regarding
records management, as irrelevant.

(Id. at 5.)

This objection is

sustained; counsel is to alert the Court if the policy becomes
relevant during trial.

IV.

Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Trial Exhibits

Plaintiff

objects

to

Defendants'

exhibit

1,

copies

of

Plaintiff's convictions, as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.
(Doc.

No.

limited

183.)

to

the

Burston,

159

conclude

that

district

court

non-defendant

Evidence

nature

F.Sd

and

1328,

[Federal
to

admit

of

Plaintiff's

number

1336

Rule

convictions.

(11th

of

evidence

witness'

of

prior

Cir.

Evidence]
of

convictions

the

1998)

felony

See

(^'We

609(a)(1)

nature

and

will

be

U.S.

v.

therefore

requires
number

of

convictions.")

a
a

This

information shall first be developed upon cross-examination.

If

necessary, documents may be offered thereafter.
V.

Jury Charge

Counsel for both parties are to confer and submit a joint
jury charge to the Court before trial.
VI.

Conclusion

Upon the foregoing. Defendants' motions in limine (doc. no.
185) are GRANTED IN PART, DENIED AS MOOT, or DEFERRED UNTIL TRIAL
in

accordance

with

this

Order.

IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

Defendants' and Plaintiff's objections to trial exhibits

that

(doc.

nos. 182-83) are SUSTAINED IN PART, OVERRULED IN PART, or DEFERRED
UNTIL TRIAL in accordance with this Order.

ORDER

ENTERED

September, 2019.

at

Augusta,

Georgia,

this

day

of

UNITED STA

DISTRICT JUDGE