Tolliver v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

Filing 218

ORDER re: Motions in Limine (Doc. 178 ) (Doc. 181 ) (Doc. 199 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 10/20/2022. (jlpe).

Case 3:16-cv-00130-SMY Document 218 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #3359

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JONATHAN TOLLIVER, #R05836,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
SALVADOR GODINEZ, KIMBERLY
BUTLER, LINDA CARTER, C/O
HAMILTON, C/O CROSS, LT.
WALLER, C/O SKIDMORE, NURSE
MOLDENHAUER, DR. TROST, and
JEFF HUTCHINSON (in his official
capacity),
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-130-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are the motions in limine filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Tolliver,
#R05836 (Doc. 181); Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Nurse Moldenhauer, and Dr.
Trost (“Wexford Defendants”) (Doc. 178); and Defendants Salvador Godinez, Kimberly
Butler, Linda Carter, C/O Hamilton, C/O Cross, Lt. Waller, C/O Skidmore, and Jeff
Hutchinson (“IDOC Defendants”) (Doc. 199).
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). “Denial of

Case 3:16-cv-00130-SMY Document 218 Filed 10/20/22 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #3360

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 more fully explained on the record during the final pretrial
conference on October 12, 2022, the Court rules as follows.
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
1. Plaintiff moves to exclude nonparty witnesses from the courtroom.

The motion is

GRANTED without objection.
2. Plaintiff moves to bar evidence of the nature of Plaintiff’s conviction and sentence. The
motion is GRANTED with respect to the nature of the offense(s), conviction(s), and
sentence(s). However, the fact that Plaintiff is a convicted felon may be admitted under
Federal Rule of Evidence 609.
3. Plaintiff moves to bar any evidence regarding Plaintiff’s prison disciplinary infraction(s)
and other “bad acts.” The motion is GRANTED. Evidence regarding disciplinary
infraction(s) and other “bad acts” are wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the claims and
defenses in this case.
4. Plaintiff moves to bar Defendants from referring to witnesses as inmates, prisoners, or
detainees. The motion is DENIED.

2

Case 3:16-cv-00130-SMY Document 218 Filed 10/20/22 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #3361

5. Plaintiff moves to bar any “tag team cross-examination” by Defendants. The motion is
DENIED. Each Defendant has a right to conduct cross-examination. Specific objections
can be addressed during trial.
6. Plaintiff moves to bar any references to jurors’ pecuniary interests.

The motion is

GRANTED without objection.
7. Plaintiff moves to bar reference to any street gangs. The motion is GRANTED without
objection.
8. Plaintiff moves to bar undisclosed expert opinions. The motion is GRANTED.
9. Plaintiff moves to bar the introduction of any evidence related to settlement. The motion
is GRANTED without objection.
10. Plaintiff moves to bar argument or insinuation that a Plaintiff’s verdict may have adverse
consequences for Defendants. The motion is GRANTED without objection.
11. Plaintiff moves to bar reference to former claims, former Defendants, or third parties who
should be Defendants. The motion is GRANTED without objection.
12. Plaintiff moves to bar testimony on credibility. The motion is GRANTED with respect to
barring any witness from testifying as to credibility of any other witness. The motion is
DENIED with respect to evidence regarding reputation/character for truthfulness or
untruthfulness admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 608.
13. Plaintiff moves to bar evidence of Plaintiff’s irrelevant health conditions. The motion is
GRANTED.
14. Plaintiff moves to bar Defendants from introducing evidence regarding third-party witness
convictions. The motion is GRANTED with respect to the nature of the offense(s),
3

Case 3:16-cv-00130-SMY Document 218 Filed 10/20/22 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #3362

conviction(s), and sentence(s). The motion is DENIED with respect to evidence that a
witness is a convicted felon, admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 609.
15. Plaintiff moves to bar undisclosed witnesses from testifying at trial. The motion is
DENIED as vague.
16. Plaintiff moves to bar any reference to the individual Defendants’ financial inability to pay
a judgment for compensatory damages. The motion is GRANTED.
17. Plaintiff moves to bar reference to the fact that Plaintiff’s attorneys are from out of town.
The motion is DENIED.
18. Plaintiff moves to bar evidence or argument that Plaintiff engaged in drug-seeking behavior
or previously abused drugs. The motion is GRANTED without objection.
19. Plaintiff moves to bar argument or evidence that Plaintiff is responsible for his hand injury.
The motion is GRANTED.
20. Plaintiff moves to bar any mention of the Ross class action and Plaintiff’s status as a Ross
named Plaintiff. The motion is GRANTED.
21. Plaintiff moves to bar current or former Defendants from testifying about what they “would
have done” under certain circumstances not supported by evidence. The motion is
GRANTED.
22. Plaintiff moves to bar reference to Defendants’ awards or other good character evidence.
The motion is GRANTED.
23. Plaintiff moves to bar argument that inference should be drawn against Plaintiff because
third-party witnesses are absent at trial. The motion is GRANTED without objection.

4

Case 3:16-cv-00130-SMY Document 218 Filed 10/20/22 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #3363

Wexford Defendants’ Motions in Limine
1. Wexford Defendants move to preclude any and all arguments and evidence of medical
treatment provided to other inmates. The motion is DENIED to the extent that there may
be such evidence that relates to Plaintiff’s Monell claim.
2. Wexford Defendants move to preclude all argument and evidence of Wexford Defendants’
insurance or other insurance policies. The motion is GRANTED without objection.
3. Wexford Defendants move to preclude any and all statement, testimony or argument about
Wexford Health Sources, Inc. being a for-profit corporation or a “big” corporation. The
motion is DENIED to the extent that the financial condition of Wexford may be relevant
to the issue of punitive damages.
4. Wexford Defendants move to preclude any and all argument or evidence requiring
specialized knowledge, education, or training from witnesses not qualified as experts. The
motion is GRANTED without objection.
5. Wexford Defendants move to exclude any and all reference to any other litigation or claims
in which any Defendant is or has been involved. The motion is GRANTED.
6. Wexford Defendants move to preclude any instruction from Plaintiff or his counsel to the
jury to send a message to Defendants or act as a conscience of the community. The motion
is GRANTED except to the extent that counsel may argue in support of punitive damages.
7. Wexford Defendants move to preclude any documents, testimony, or other evidence not
expressly produced in written discovery. The motion is DENIED as vague.

5

Case 3:16-cv-00130-SMY Document 218 Filed 10/20/22 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #3364

8. Wexford Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff from referencing or seeking to amit into
evidence affidavits of potential witnesses that may have been produced in discovery or for
purposes of summary judgment. The motion is GRANTED.
9. Wexford Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence or testimony of
any misconduct, reprimand or grievance issued against Defendants, including facts related
to employee resignation or termination. The motion is GRANTED.
10. Wexford Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff from introducing any news articles, media
stories or any opinion pieces. This motion is GRANTED.
11. Wexford Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff from arguing that Wexford or any of its
employees had the authority and ability to override IDOC policies or to have full control
over when incarcerated patients would be sent off-site for medical care. The motion is
DENIED.
12. Wexford Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff from arguing or presenting evidence that
Wexford or any of its employees had any responsibility to provide medical care to Plaintiff
prior to the date that Wexford or any of its employees were notified of the injury. The
motion is DENIED.
13. Wexford Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff’s counsel from describing themselves as
specialists in Section 1983 litigation. The motion is GRANTED without objection.
14. Wexford Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Slater, from offering opinions
outside of his expert report. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that the expert cannot
offer opinions outside the scope of the opinions disclosed in his report and deposition.

6

Case 3:16-cv-00130-SMY Document 218 Filed 10/20/22 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #3365

15. Wexford Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff from introducing any grievances. The
motion is DENIED as overbroad in scope.
16. Wexford Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff’s counsel from asking questions related to
the standard of care without tying to a specific individual. The motion is DENIED.
17. Wexford Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff’s expert from offering testimony of
“criticisms” that do not rise to the level of deliberately indifferent medical care or, in the
alternative, medical negligence. The motion is DENIED as vague.
18. Wexford Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence or making the
argument that Wexford is responsible for the action of its employees or the medical unit at
Menard Correctional Center in general. The motion is DENIED.
19. Wexford Defendants move for leave of court to file additional motions in limine as
necessary. The motion is DENIED.
IDOC Defendants’ Motions in Limine
1. IDOC Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff and his witnesses from testifying at trial
regarding the causation of any medical or mental health condition.

The motion is

GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff and his witnesses, other than expert witnesses, are
precluded from offering expert medical opinions regarding diagnosis, prognosis, and
causation.
2. IDOC Defendants move to bar Plaintiff from offering inadmissible hearsay statements of
any medical or mental health professional. The motion is DENIED as vague.

7

Case 3:16-cv-00130-SMY Document 218 Filed 10/20/22 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #3366

3. IDOC Defendants move to bar Plaintiff from offering testimony or otherwise suggesting
that the State of Illinois will indemnify Defendants. The motion is GRANTED without
objection.
4. IDOC Defendants move to prohibit Plaintiff from offering evidence or testimony of other
lawsuits involving the Defendants. The motion is GRANTED.
5. IDOC Defendants move to prohibit Plaintiff from offering evidence or testimony of any
misconduct, reprimand, or grievance issued against the Defendants.

The motion is

GRANTED.
6. IDOC Defendants move to prohibit Plaintiff from offering evidence or testimony
referencing any “golden rule” appeal. The motion is GRANTED without objection.
7. IDOC Defendants move to prohibit Plaintiff from offering his own grievances as evidence.
The motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 20, 2022

STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

8