Cunningham v. Lewis et al

Filing 77

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (Doc 68 ) and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Defendants' Motions in Limine (Doc. 67 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 12/5/2017. (bps)

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

BENNIE CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BENJAMIN LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-CV-0619-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are the motions in limine filed by Plaintiff Bennie
Cunningham (Doc. 68) and Defendants Benjamin Lewis and Jason Zollars (Doc. 67). The
Court heard argument from the parties and made the rulings below on the record during the
final pretrial conference on November 15, 2017.
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.

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.
2

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine:
•

Plaintiff’s Motion in limine No. 1— Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence of his prior
convictions. Evidence of the fact that Plaintiff has been convicted of a felony is
probative as to his credibility as a witness under FRE 609 and is therefore admissible for
that purpose. However, the Court finds that details 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 only as to evidence of
the fact that Plaintiff has been convicted of a felony.

•

Plaintiff’s Motion in limine No. 2— Plaintiff moves to bar any evidence as to prior
convictions of any witnesses he may call. Again, evidence of the fact that a witness has
been convicted of a felony is probative as to his or her credibility as a witness under FRE
609 and is therefore admissible for that purpose. However, the Court finds that details as
to the crime(s) for which witnesses were convicted and the length of their sentence(s) are
more prejudicial than probative and are thus excludable under FRE 403. The motion is
therefore DENIED only as to evidence or reference to the fact that any witness has been
convicted of a felony.

•

Plaintiff’s Motion in limine No. 3— Plaintiff moves to bar introduction of any medical
records not relevant to the claim. As drafted, the motion is too vague for the Court to
grant—any irrelevant medical records are already inadmissible under FRE 402. As such,
the motion is DENIED subject to appropriate objection during the course of trial.

•

Plaintiff’s Motion in limine No. 4— Plaintiff moves to bar any evidence regarding
Plaintiff’s disciplinary record for incidents other than those related to the July 10, 2014
incident at issue in this case. Any disciplinary records unrelated to the underlying
incident in this case are immaterial and irrelevant. As such, the motion is GRANTED as
to any disciplinary records other than those associated with the July 10, 2014, incident.

•

Plaintiff’s Motion in limine No. 6 1— Plaintiff moves to bar evidence of any unrelated
grievances filed by Plaintiff. Any grievances unrelated to the underlying incident in this
case are immaterial and irrelevant. As such, the motion is GRANTED as to any
disciplinary records other than those associated with the July 10, 2014, incident.

•

Plaintiff’s Motion in limine No. 6— Plaintiff has WITHDRAWN this motion.

Defendants’ Motions in Limine:
•

1

Defendants’ Motion in limine No. 1 – Defendants move to bar Plaintiff from providing
testimony regarding causation of his injuries. The motion is GRANTED. However,
Plaintiff may testify regarding his symptoms, pain and functionality.

In Plaintiff’s filing, the fifth overall motion in limine is mistakenly labeled as “VI”.
3

•

Defendants’ Motion in limine No. 2 – Defendants move to bar any testimony or argument
suggesting that the State of Illinois will indemnify Defendants. Plaintiff does not object
to this motion. The motion is accordingly GRANTED.

•

Defendants’ Motion in limine No. 3 – Defendants move to bar Plaintiff from testifying
about statements made to him by non-party medical providers. Plaintiff does not object
to this motion. The motion is accordingly GRANTED subject to exception for statements
recorded in admitted medical records.

•

Defendants’ Motion in limine No. 4 – Defendants move to bar evidence regarding
whether Defendants followed Illinois Department of Corrections policies or protocols.
Pursuant to Thompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006), evidence of
violation of policy is irrelevant to the question of whether a federal constitutional right
was violated. Plaintiff does not object to this motion. The motion is accordingly
GRANTED.

•

Defendants’ Motion in limine No. 5 – Defendants move to bar any evidence regarding
other lawsuits involving Defendants. Plaintiff does not object to this motion. The motion
is accordingly GRANTED.

•

Defendants’ Motion in limine No. 6 – Defendants move to bar any evidence regarding
prior misconduct, reprimands or grievances involving Defendants. Plaintiff does not
object to this motion. The motion is accordingly GRANTED.

•

Defendants’ Motion in limine No. 7 – Defendants move to bar any evidence or argument
referencing any “Golden Rule” appeal. Plaintiff does not object to this motion. The
motion is accordingly GRANTED.

•

Defendants’ Motion in limine No. 8 – Defendants move to bar any reference to claims in
this case which have been dismissed. To the extent this motion seeks to exclude
testimony regarding events leading up to Plaintiff being placed in the showers which
were the basis of some of the claims in this case which have been dismissed, such
testimony may or may not be relevant and admissible depending upon the context in
which it is offered at trial. As such, the motion is DENIED at present, subject to
appropriate objection during the course of trial.

SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 5, 2017

/s/ Staci M. Yandle _______
United States District Judge

4