Huerta v. Village of Carol Stream et al

Filing 131

WRITTEN Opinion signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 10/18/2012: Enter rulings on pending motions in limine. (For further details see minute order.)Mailed notice(sct, ) Modified on 10/18/2012 (sct, ).

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Charles P. Kocoras

CASE NUMBER

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

09 C 1492

DATE

October 18, 2012

Huerta vs. Village of Carol Stream et al

CASE
TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Enter rulings on pending motions in limine.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

ORDER

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
1.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine to bar reference or general argument as to what police officers do or not do.
Ruling:

2.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine to bar reference to the existence of plaintiff’s previously dismissed claims.
Ruling:

3.

Motion is denied without prejudice to raising objections at trial to specific questions.

Motion is granted as to any rulings the Court made dismissing other claims and
other parties. Whether evidence of conduct of non-parties is admissible or
objectionable must await trial. The prior rulings by the Court are not relevant to the
jury’s determination of the facts.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine to bar bolstering of defendants.
Ruling:

Motion is denied without prejudice to timely renewal at trial based on specifically
proffered evidence.

09C1492 Huerta vs. Village of Carol Stream et al

Page 1 of 4

ORDER
4.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine to bar argument or evidence that defendants will endure financial hardship
if plaintiff is awarded any damages.
Ruling:

5.

Motion is denied without prejudice to timely renewal at trial based on specifically
proffered evidence.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine to bar any reference that any award of money presents a burden on the
taxpayers.
Ruling:

Motion is denied without prejudice to timely renewal at trial based on specifically
proffered evidence.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
1.

Expert testimony from any treating physicians should be excluded because they were not disclosed as
experts in accordance with F.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) and they have not identified to any opinion which can be
attributed to these defendants only.
Ruling:

2.

Vulgar or racial slurs purportedly made by dismissed parties are prejudicial and are not relevant to any
claim or defense.
Ruling:

3.

Statements made by non-parties are not admissible. Acts of non-parties causing
injury to the plaintiff may be admissible, depending on all of the circumstances
surrounding any such conduct. These issues will be resolved at trial.

Vulgar statements purportedly made by the Carol Stream officers are not relevant to any claim or defense
and are overly prejudicial.
Ruling:

4.

Treating physicians may testify as to their treatment and observations made during
the course of treatment. Any testimony outside their scope of treatment will require
expert reports; opinions as to causation not formed during the course of treatment
require expert reports.

Statements made to Plaintiff by non-parties post-arrest are not admissible.

Statements that plaintiff was denied medical attention should be barred, because plaintiff has no claim
for a denial of medical attention.
Ruling:

Denied without prejudice to renewal at trial.

09C1492 Huerta vs. Village of Carol Stream et al

Page 2 of 4

ORDER
5.

Evidence of plaintiff’s purported neck injury should be barred because he does not know how it was
injured.
Ruling:

6.

Evidence that plaintiff was kicked to the ground by a non-party Glendale Heights police officer should
be barred because it cannot be attributed to defendants.
Ruling:

7.

Granted; Plaintiff does not object.

That all non-party witnesses should be excluded from the courtroom during trial testimony.
Ruling:

12.

Denied without prejudice to renewal at trial.

To bar any testimony, evidence, argument, or comments regarding other events concerning allegations
of police misconduct in the media or any other forum.
Ruling:

11.

Admissibility of “dispatch” evidence will be resolved at trial.

That there is a “code of silence” among officers.
Ruling:

10.

Denied without prejudice to renewal at trial.

Allow evidence showing the reason why the defendants were dispatched to the scene and the reason they
entered plaintiff’s apartment.
Ruling:

9.

See ruling re: Defense Motion 2.

The reason that plaintiff pled guilty to criminal battery against defendant Officer Incrocci is not relevant
to any claim or defense.
Ruling:

8.

Denied without prejudice to renewal at trial.

Granted; Plaintiff does not object.

Any testimony or argument regarding settlement discussions must be barred pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 408.
Ruling:

Granted without prejudice to trial reconsideration.

09C1492 Huerta vs. Village of Carol Stream et al

Page 3 of 4

ORDER
13.

Bar the attorneys from conferring or speaking with any witness about that witness’ testimony while that
witness is still under oath.
Ruling:

14.

Bar evidence or argument that the defendants delayed trial, or that the plaintiff has waited a long time for
her day in court.
Ruling:

Date:

Granted without prejudice to trial reconsideration.

Granted without prejudice to trial reconsideration.

October 18, 2012
CHARLES P. KOCORAS
U.S. District Judge

09C1492 Huerta vs. Village of Carol Stream et al

Page 4 of 4