Reynolds v. Lyerla et al

Filing 99

ORDER re Motions in Limine and Admissibility of Exhibits, granting in part and denying in part 97 Motion to Appear in Civilian Clothes and Without Restraints. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 11/21/17. (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:
Before the Court are several remaining motions in limine, along with Plaintiff’s Motion
to Appear in Civilian Clothes and Without Restraints (Doc. 97). Each will be addressed in turn.
Plaintiff’s last remaining motion in limine is a request to exclude his medical records not
relevant to the claims in this lawsuit. Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Defendants shall be prohibited from introducing any reference to “Psych Notes,” but the
Defendants may otherwise introduce Plaintiff’s other records.
Defendants seek to exclude Plaintiff’s witness Lamar Moore from testifying at trial,
arguing that he was disclosed after the deadline to complete discovery ended. Plaintiff admits
disclosing the witness after the close of discovery (in June 2017), but Plaintiff argues that the
parties were conducting discovery after the discovery deadline period. Defendants’ motion in
limine shall be granted. The Court agrees with the Defendants in that Lamar Moore was not
timely disclosed. Plaintiff filed this action on April 29, 2014, and the witness was disclosed over
three years later.

Because he was not timely disclosed, Plaintiff shall be prohibited from

introducing Moore as a witness.
1

Defendants also seek to exclude any evidence Plaintiff may introduce as to whether a
Menard Correctional Center internal affairs investigation took place following the alleged
excessive force incident, or alternatively, the lack of such an investigation. Defendants argue
that such evidence would be unfairly prejudicial because they had no control over whether an
investigation would occur, and the lack of an investigation may suggest the possibility that
Menard employees purposefully ignored Plaintiff’s excessive force allegations. Defendants’
motion is denied.

Plaintiff may introduce evidence addressing whether an internal affairs

investigation did or did not occur. Although Defendants argue that such evidence would be
unfairly prejudicial, the Defendants are free to testify that they had no involvement in the
decision whether to conduct an internal affairs investigation.
At the final pretrial conference, Defendants also sought to exclude Plaintiff’s witness
Angela Grott. Grott was a corrections counselor at Menard Correctional Center during the
events at issue in this lawsuit. Defendants’ objection to Plaintiff introducing Grott as a witness is
overruled. Plaintiff may introduce Grott as a witness. Plaintiff shall be permitted to elicit
testimony from Grott regarding any interactions she may have had with Plaintiff during the
events at issue in this lawsuit, and any grievances she may have received from Plaintiff. Plaintiff
may also testify as to any grievances he provided to Grott.
However, Plaintiff’s specific grievances and correspondence regarding submitted
grievances constitute inadmissible hearsay.

Plaintiff shall therefore be prohibited from

introducing the exhibits at trial.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear in Civilian Clothes and Without Restraints (Doc. 97) is
granted in part and denied in part. The Illinois Department of Corrections shall accommodate
Plaintiff’s request to appear at trial in civilian clothes. Plaintiff shall also be present in front of

2

the jury without handcuffs. However, Plaintiff may have his legs shackled during the course of
the trial. The leg shackles will be obstructed from the view of the jury.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 21, 2017.
s/ Reona J. Daly
REONA J. DALY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3