Davis v. Department of Human Services et al

Filing 161

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (Doc. 140 ) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' Motions in Limine (Doc. 104) are GRANTED IN PART and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 5/3/2018. (bps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHRISTOPHER NOVUS DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LUCAS NANNY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-CV-1260-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are the motions in limine filed by Plaintiff Christopher
Novus Davis (Doc. 140) and Defendants Lucas Nanny, Tom Nordman, Josh Rackley and
Terry Stewart (Doc. 104). All parties have responded (Docs. 154 and 141).
The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule on the relevance and
admissibility of evidence before it is offered at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41,
n.4 (1984)(“although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in
limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent
authority to manage the course of trials”). It serves to “aid the trial process by enabling the
court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues
that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.”
Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562, 566 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136,
141 (2nd Cir. 1996).
Motions in limine also may save the parties time, effort, and cost in preparing and
presenting their cases.

Pivot Point Intern., Inc. v. Charlene Products, Inc., 932 F. Supp.

Page 1 of 4

220, 222 (N.D. Ill. 1996). Often, however, the better practice is to wait until trial to rule on
objections, particularly when admissibility substantially depends upon facts which may be
developed there.

Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th

Cir. 1997).
The movant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is inadmissible on any
relevant ground, “for any purpose.” Plair v. E.J. Brach & Sons, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 67, 69
(N.D. Ill. 1994).

The court may deny a motion in limine when it “lacks the necessary

specificity with respect to the evidence to be excluded.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
Pittsburgh v. L.E. Myers Co. Group, 937 F. Supp. 276, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Moreover,
the court may alter an in limine ruling based on developments at trial or sound judicial
discretion. Luce, 469 U.S. at 41. “Denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all
evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted at trial.”

Hawthorne Partners v.

AT&T Tech., Inc., 831 F. Supp.1398, 1401 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Denial only means that the court
cannot decide admissibility outside the context of trial. Plair, 864 F. Supp. at 69.
A Court may reserve judgment until trial, so that the motion in limine is placed “in an
appropriate factual context.” Nat'l Union, 937 F. Supp. at 287. Stated another way, motion
in limine rulings are “subject to change when the case unfolds” at trial. Luce, 469 U.S. at
41. Indeed, “even if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the district judge is free, in the exercise
of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling.” Id. The Court should exclude
evidence on a motion in limine “only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all
potential grounds.” Jonasson, 115 F.3d at 440.
With these principles in mind, the Court rules as follows.

Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine:
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 1 seeks to preclude testimony or argument regarding
Plaintiff’s criminal charges, convictions, or sentences. Evidence that Plaintiff has been
convicted of a felony is probative as to his credibility as a witness and admissible under
FRE 609. However, the Court finds that details such as to the crime(s) for which Plaintiff
was convicted and the length of his sentence are more prejudicial than probative and are
thus excludable under FRE 403. The motion is therefore DENIED. However, evidence
or argument regarding Plaintiff’s criminal history is limited to the fact that Plaintiff has
been convicted of a felony.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 2 seeks to exclude evidence of unrelated lawsuits against
Defendants in correctional institutions, and inmate grievances against the Illinois
Department of Corrections and/or its employees. Such evidence is neither material nor
relevant to the issues in this case. The motion is therefore GRANTED.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 3 seeks to exclude any argument or the presentation of any
evidence regarding Plaintiff’s history of conduct violations or other disciplinary history
during his incarceration. Such evidence is neither material nor relevant to the issues in
this case. The motion is therefore GRANTED.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 4 seeks to exclude any reference to efforts to settle the
present case. This motion is GRANTED without objection.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 5 asks that Plaintiff be allowed to appear in “street clothes”
rather than a prison uniform at trial. This motion is GRANTED without objection.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 6 seeks to exclude any argument or the presentation of any
evidence regarding Defendants’ wealth or ability to pay a damage award. This motion is
GRANTED without objection.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 7 seeks to exclude any argument or the presentation of any
evidence regarding the jurors’ interest as taxpayers in refusing to award damages which
would be paid by the State of Illinois or the State of Illinois’ current financial condition.
This motion is GRANTED without objection.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 8 seeks to exclude any argument or the presentation of any
evidence regarding Plaintiff’s appointment of pro bono counsel or withdrawal of prior
appointed counsel. This motion is GRANTED without objection.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 9 seeks to exclude the presentation of any expert witness
testimony or opinions, as no experts have been disclosed. Plaintiff’s motion makes
specific reference to Dr. Larry Soellner, an Optometrist who examined Plaintiff on two
occasions after the alleged incident. The motion is GRANTED as to any expert opinions
including the diagnosis of Plaintiff’s injuries/condition(s) and causation. To the extent

Page 3 of 4

that Dr. Soellner may have relevant non-expert testimony, it may be offered subject to
objection in the context of the trial.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 10 seeks to exclude any documents containing prior out-ofcourt statements about the incident as hearsay. The motion is GRANTED as to
documents identified in the motion.
Defendants’ Motions in Limine
Defendants’ Motion in Limine 1 seeks to exclude evidence or testimony regarding
indemnification of Defendants by the State of Illinois. This motion is GRANTED
without objection.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine 2 seeks to exclude evidence regarding other lawsuits
involving Defendants. This motion is GRANTED without objection.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine 3 seeks to exclude testimony or evidence regarding prior
misconduct by Defendants, reprimands received by Defendants or grievances filed
against them. Such evidence is neither material nor relevant to the issues in this case.
The motion is therefore GRANTED.
Defendant's Motion in Limine 4 seeks to exclude any appeal to the “Golden Rule,”
asking jurors to put themselves in Plaintiff’s position. This motion is GRANTED
without objection.
Defendant's Motion in Limine 5 seeks to exclude evidence or testimony regarding the
Illinois Administrative Code’s provisions on use of force or excessive force. This motion
is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT and will be ruled upon separately.
Defendant's Motion in Limine 6 seeks to exclude testimony by Plaintiff or his witnesses
regarding causation of any alleged medical or mental health conditions. Plaintiff may
testify regarding his symptoms, pain and functionality before and after the alleged
incident, but may not offer any expert opinion on medical matters, including causation.
The motion is therefore GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 3, 2018

s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4