Jones v. Linn et al

Filing 210

ORDER re: motions in limine and other pretrial motions (Doc. 204 ) (Doc. 195 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/30/2024. (jlpe).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRIAN JONES, #K56957
Plaintiff,
v.
MAC-SHANE FRANK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 19-cv-1307-SMY

ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures (Doc. 196), Defendant’s
Objections to Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures (Doc. 201), Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s
Objections to his Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures (Doc. 205), Defendant’s Motions in Limine (Doc. 195),
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motions in Limine (Doc. 197), and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Request Blank Witness Subpoenas (Doc. 204). The Court conducted a hearing on these matters
on August 29, 2024.
Having considered the parties’ written submissions and arguments, and for the following
reasons and those more fully stated on the record, THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS:
Defendant’s Motions in Limine (Doc. 195)
#1. Defendant seeks to bar Jones from suggesting that the State of Illinois will indemnify
the Defendants. The motion is GRANTED without objection.
#2. Defendant seeks to prohibit Jones from offering any evidence or testimony about any
other lawsuits the Defendant may have been involved in. The motion is GRANTED over
objection.

Page 1 of 4

#3. Defendant seeks to bar Jones from offering any evidence regarding any misconduct,
reprimand, or other grievance issued against Defendant in this case. The motion is GRANTED
over objection.
#4. Defendant seeks to prohibit Johnson from offering evidence or testimony referencing
the “Golden Rule” appeal. The motion is GRANTED without objection.
Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures (Doc. 196), Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Rule
26(a)(3) Disclosures (Doc. 201), and Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Objections to his
Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures (Doc. 205)
Jones disclosed the following witnesses in his Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures: Brian Jones
(Plaintiff), Mac-Shane Frank (Defendant), Scott Thompson, Billy Stanhouse, Bart Lind, J. Reid,
and the Records Custodian for Pinckneyville Correctional Center. Defendant objects to Scott
Thompson, Billy Stanhouse, Bart Lind, and J.Reid. The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s objections
as to Scott Thompson, Billy Stanhouse, and Bart Lind because it finds that their testimony would
not be relevant and probative to Jones’ claim against Mac-Shane Frank.

The Court also

SUSTAINS Defendant’s objection as to J. Reid because Jones failed to properly disclose J. Reid
as a potential witness. Jones is, therefore, barred from presenting any evidence or testimony from
Scott Thompson, Billy Stanhouse, Bart Lind, and J. Reid.
As it relates to the Records Custodian for Pinckneyville Correctional Center, Defendant
stipulated during the final pretrial conference to the authenticity of records from Pinckneyville
Correctional Center. Accordingly, the Records Custodian is not a relevant and necessary witness
unless the authenticity of official Pinckneyville Correctional Center documents is challenged by
Defendant during trial.
Plaintiff disclosed numerous exhibits in his Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures including: various
grievances, email communications, an internal affairs report, a letter authored by Plaintiff, a

Page 2 of 4

recorded conversation between Plaintiff to his family members, and Plaintiff’s declaration in
support of his response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
As it relates to Plaintiff’s grievances, Plaintiff can put in to evidence the grievances that he
asserts are the reason that Defendant retaliated against him. If those grievances are admitted into
evidence, the jury will be instructed that they can only consider them to show that the grievances
were filed and when they were filed in relationship to the conduct Plaintiff alleges was protected
activity in this case. The jury will be instructed not to consider the substance of the grievance or
what was being complained of. As such, Defendant’s objection is SUSTAINED with the above
stated exception.
As it relates to emails, if Plaintiff can properly lay the foundation for their admission, then
they may be admitted. As such, Defendant’s objection is OVERRULED.
As it relates to the internal affairs report of investigation, to the extent it contains statements
by Defendant that would be admissions then they would be admissible for that purpose. As such,
Defendant’s objection is OVERRULED to that extent.
As it relates to the letter authored by Plaintiff, the letter would be hearsay so Defendant’s
objection is SUSTAINED.
As it relates to Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his response to Defendants’ summary
judgment motion, the declaration would be hearsay so Defendant’s objection is SUSTAINED.
As it relates to the recorded conversation between Plaintiff and a family member, the
conversation would be hearsay so Defendant’s objection is SUSTAINED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Blank Witness Subpoenas (Doc. 204)
Jones’ Motion to Request Blank Witness Subpoenas (Doc. 204) is TERMINATED AS
MOOT.
Page 3 of 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 30, 2024

STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4