Ross v. Gossett et al

Filing 758

ORDER: Plaintiffs' motions in limine (Doc. 735 ) and Defendants' motions in limine (Doc. 734 ) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/10/2025. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DEMETRIUS ROSS, et al., on behalf of
)
themselves and all others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GREG GOSSETT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 15-cv-309-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:

Pending before the Court are the motions in limine filed by Plaintiffs (Doc. 735) and Defendants
(Doc. 734).
Motions in limine “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). 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). “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). Often, 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). With these principles in mind, and for the reasons fully stated on the record
during the final pretrial conference, the Court rules as follows.
Page 1 of 4

Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine (Doc. 735)
1. Plaintiffs move to bar evidence of or reference to class members’ criminal histories. The
motion in limine is GRANTED in part. Evidence relating to a class member or witness’
criminal history and details regarding their convictions are irrelevant and inadmissible.
However, evidence that the witness and/or party is a convicted felon is admissible as
relevant to their credibility.
2. Plaintiffs move to bar evidence of or reference to class members’ disciplinary histories and
security classifications. Any evidence regarding disciplinary histories or security
classifications is irrelevant and inadmissible. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiffs move to bar reference to witnesses as felons, offenders, convicts, or inmates. The
motion is GRANTED in part. Any pejorative terms utilized to refer to inmates is barred.
4. Plaintiffs move to bar evidence of or reference to unrelated litigation and grievances filed
by class members. Any evidence or reference to unrelated litigation and grievances filed
by class members is irrelevant and inadmissible. The motion is GRANTED.
5. Plaintiffs move to bar reference to dismissed defendants and defendants against whom the
class was not certified. The motion is GRANTED; references to defendants against whom
the class was not certified are irrelevant.
6. Plaintiffs move to bar evidence of or reference to any class member’s alleged illegal drug
or alcohol use. Any reference to a class members’ drug or alcohol use is irrelevant to the
claims and defenses in this case and is inadmissible. The motion is GRANTED.
7. Plaintiffs move to bar references to or evidence of alleged gang affiliations of class
members. Any such evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible. The motion is GRANTED.
8. Plaintiffs move to bar testimony that prisoners with Class X convictions are violent,
particularly dangerous, or more likely to have contraband. Such testimony or references are
speculative, irrelevant, and immaterial. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
9. Plaintiffs move to bar testimony about the number of grievances that a group of prisoners
“would file” in a given situation. This testimony is irrelevant and inadmissible. The motion
is GRANTED.
10. Plaintiffs move to bar undisclosed affirmative defenses. The motion is GRANTED.
11. Plaintiffs move to bar reference to class members’ communication with class counsel and
attorney compensation. Any such references are irrelevant and immaterial. The motion is
GRANTED.
12. Plaintiffs move to bar evidence of or reference to contraband found during the shakedowns.
Any evidence about what may have been found during the shakedown is irrelevant.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
13. Plaintiffs move to bar Defendants’ “good character” evidence. The motion is GRANTED.
Page 2 of 4

14. Plaintiffs move to bar testimony from witnesses about what they “would have” done or
remembered. The motion is GRANTED. Speculative testimony of what a witness would
have done under a particular circumstance that they do not now remember is prohibited.
15. Plaintiffs move to bar reference to irrelevant security incidents after the shakedowns that
are the subject of this litigation. Any evidence regarding shakedowns after the shakedowns
at issue in this litigation are irrelevant and immaterial to the claims and defenses in this case.
The motion is GRANTED.
16. Plaintiffs move to bar speculative testimony on witness credibility and specifically bar
speculative testimony that class members colluded to write grievances about the
shakedowns. Any reference to or insinuation that the class members coordinated to file
grievances about the shakedown is speculative and irrelevant. The motion is GRANTED.
17. Plaintiffs move to bar unauthenticated video footage. The motion is GRANTED. Any
unauthenticated video footage will be barred. An offer of proof shall be made prior to any
examination regarding or attempt to admit videotape evidence in this case.
18. Plaintiffs move to bar reference to specific prison programs. The motion is GRANTED.
19. Plaintiffs move to bar reference to or argument about class counsel being from out of town.
The motion is GRANTED without objection.
20. Plaintiffs move to bar undisclosed expert testimony. The motion is GRANTED without
objection.
21. Plaintiffs move to bar reference to jurors’ pecuniary interests. The motion is GRANTED
without objection.
22. Plaintiffs move to bar evidence and witnesses not timely disclosed in discovery. The motion
is GRANTED without objection.
23. Plaintiffs move to bar reference to class members’ financial conditions. The motion is
GRANTED without objection.
24. Plaintiffs move to bar all non-party witnesses from the courtroom during trial testimony.
The motion is GRANTED without objection.
25. Plaintiffs move to bar use of police resources to run background checks on potential jurors.
The motion is GRANTED without objection.
26. Plaintiffs move to bar reference to Defendants’ financial inability to pay a judgment. The
motion is GRANTED without objection.
Defendants’ Motions in Limine (Doc. 734)
1. Defendants move to bar Plaintiffs from presenting a theory of liability based on supervisory
Defendants’ alleged failure to intervene in misconduct originating at the tactical unit level.
This is an improper motion in limine; it is DENIED.
2. Defendants move to bar Plaintiffs from introducing evidence regarding the Department’s
strip search procedures after July 11, 2014. Evidence regarding procedures implemented
Page 3 of 4

after the incidents in question in this case is irrelevant and inadmissible. The motion is
GRANTED.
3. Defendants move to bar Plaintiffs from introducing evidence about any alleged “missing”
videos. There is no spoliation claim in this case. Therefore, such evidence is irrelevant and
inadmissible. The motion is GRANTED.
4. Defendants move to bar Plaintiffs from describing the strip searches as torture or comparing
the strip searches to Abu Ghraib or any other jail or prison. The motion is GRANTED in
part. A witness will be allowed to describe their experience during the shakedowns.
5. Defendants move to bar Plaintiffs from offering testimony or otherwise suggesting that the
State of Illinois will indemnify the Defendants. The motion is GRANTED without
objection.
6. Defendants move to bar Plaintiffs from making a ‘golden rule’ argument. The motion is
GRANTED without objection.
7. Defendants move to bar Plaintiffs from introducing certain expert testimony. The motion is
an untimely Daubert motion; it is DENIED.
8. Defendants move to bar Plaintiffs from giving opinion testimony as to medical issues. The
motion is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs or any other lay witness cannot give
medical opinions regarding diagnoses or the causation of a particular condition. However,
a plaintiff may testify to their own symptoms.
9. Defendants move to bar Plaintiffs from offering evidence of other lawsuits against
Defendants. The motion is GRANTED. Any evidence of other lawsuits against Defendants
is irrelevant and inadmissible.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 10, 2025

STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4