Reynolds v. Lyerla et al

Filing 94

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 72 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 73 Motion in Limine. The Court reserved ruling on some of the requests: at the final pretrial conference, parties should be prepared to discuss Plaintiff's request to exclude irrelevant medical records, the request to exclude witnesses not timely disclosed, and Defendants' request to exclude evidence or testimony regarding a conversation with Former Internal Affairs Officer Lashbrook (and absence of investigation). Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 10/25/17. (kos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY REYNOLDS, R10672,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOUGLAS LYERLA,
CEDRIC McDONOUGH and
LUCAS MAUE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-00492-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 72) and
Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 73). Each will be addressed in turn.
A. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
Plaintiff seeks to exclude five categories of evidence.
a. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Prior Convictions.
Plaintiff seeks to exclude any of his previous criminal record, including his prior
convictions of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, armed habitual criminal, aggravated
unlawful use of a weapon and murder. Defendants object to Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that
Plaintiff is currently serving a 20 year sentence for being an armed habitual criminal and a 60
year sentence for murder with intent to kill/injure. Defendants argue that those convictions are
admissible under FRE 609(b) and are not unfairly prejudicial under FRE 403.
Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants may introduce
evidence that Plaintiff is incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, an Illinois Department of
Corrections Prison, for an extended period of time. The probative value of any additional
1

information regarding Plaintiff’s criminal convictions is substantially outweighed by the danger
that it would be unfairly prejudicial. Defendants are therefore prohibited from introducing
evidence regarding Plaintiff’s specific convictions or the nature of the criminal offenses.
b. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Witnesses Prior Convictions.
Similarly, Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence of prior convictions of Plaintiff’s witnesses
at trial. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion, noting that Plaintiff’s witnesses (Christopher
Scott, R31806, and Lemar Moore, R11046) are both currently incarcerated with IDOC. Scott is
serving time for murder, armed robbery and residential burglary. Moore is serving time for
murder.
Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendants may introduce

evidence that Plaintiff’s witnesses are incarcerated with the Illinois Department of Corrections
for an extended period of time. The probative value of any additional information regarding
their criminal convictions is substantially outweighed by the danger that it would be unfairly
prejudicial. Defendants are therefore prohibited from introducing evidence regarding Plaintiff’s
witnesses’ specific convictions or the nature of the criminal offenses.
c. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Medical Records Not Relevant to the Excessive
Force and Deliberate Indifference Claims.
Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence consisting of Plaintiff’s medical records that are not
relevant to the excessive force used by Defendants on June 2, 2012, and the deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s medical condition subsequent to that date. Defendants ask the Court to
reserve ruling on this issue, noting that Plaintiff has not specifically identified which medical
records are (and are not) relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit. The Court agrees with
Defendants and will reserve ruling on this issue. Parties should be prepared to discuss this

2

motion at the final pretrial conference.
d. Motion to Bar Any Witnesses Not Previously Disclosed.
Defendants do not oppose this motion. However, Defendants state that they seek to bar
Plaintiff’s witness Lemar Moore from testifying at trial. Defendants assert that Moore was first
disclosed as a witness in Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(3)(A) pretrial disclosures (see Doc. 75). The
Court will reserve ruling on this issue. Parties should be prepared to discuss this motion at the
final pretrial conference.
e. Motion to Bar Reference to Plaintiff Not Receiving Medical Care After the
June 3, 2012 Incident Because He Did Not Want to Pay the Co-Pay for
Treatment.
Plaintiff seeks to bar reference to any testimony that he did not receive medical care after
the June 3, 2012 incident because he did not want to provide the $5 co-pay.

It is not

unconstitutional to require inmates to submit a co-pay for prison medical services, so long as the
inmate has the ability to pay. See Poole v. Isaacs, 703 F.3d 1024, 1027 (7th Cir. 2012). Whether
Plaintiff decided to go without medical treatment because he did not want to provide the co-pay
may be probative as to Plaintiff’s damages and credibility. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
B. Defendants’ Motion in Limine
Defendants seek to exclude six categories of evidence.
a. Motion to Exclude Evidence or Testimony, or Otherwise Suggesting, that the
State of Illinois May Indemnify Defendants.
Plaintiff has no objection to this motion in limine. It is therefore granted.
b. Motion to Exclude Evidence or Testimony of other lawsuits involving any of
the Defendants.

3

Plaintiff has no objection to this motion in limine. It is therefore granted.
c. Motion to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding An Alleged
Conversation with Former Internal Affairs Officer Lashbrook and the
Absence of an Internal Investigation.
The Court will reserve ruling on this motion. Parties should be prepared to address the
motion at the final pretrial conference.
d. Motion to Prohibit Plaintiff from making any “Golden Rule” appeal
Plaintiff has no objection to this motion in limine. It is therefore granted.
e. Motion to Prohibit Plaintiff and his Witnesses from Testifying at Trial
Regarding the Causation of any Medical or Mental Health Condition.
Defendants assert that “[e]xpert testimony is necessary to explain the complex nature of
any relationship between Defendants’ alleged actions and the causation of any medical or mental
health condition.” Defendants therefore argue that “any uninformed opinions or lay accounts
proffered by [Plaintiff] regarding the causation of any medical conditions should be barred.”
Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff and his witnesses may
testify as to their own personal experiences and observations, but Plaintiff and witnesses shall be
prohibited from testifying as to the causation of any specific medical diagnosis. See Gil v. Reed,
381 F.3d 649, 659 (7th Cir. 2004) (“no expert testimony is needed when the symptoms exhibited
by the plaintiff are not beyond a layperson's grasp”).

4

f. Motion to Prohibit Plaintiff from Offering Evidence or Testimony of any
Misconduct, Reprimand, or Grievance and Responses Submitted Against
Defendants
Plaintiff has no objection to this motion in limine. It is therefore granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 25, 2017.
s/ Reona J. Daly
REONA J. DALY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5