Miller v. Merrillville Indiana Town of et al

Filing 34

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 10/21/11. (mc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
CHESTER L. MILLER,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
TOWN OF MERRILLVILLE, INDIANA, )
CURTIS MICHUK and
)
KOSTITINO NUSES,
)
Defendants.
)

CAUSE NO.: 2:09-CV-392-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine [DE 24], filed by Plaintiff
Chester L. Miller on October 5, 2011. On October 19, 2011, Defendants filed their response. No
reply was permitted by the Court.
In determination of these issues the Court FINDS, ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES:
Federal Rule of Evidence 104 provides, in part: “Preliminary questions concerning . . .
admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 104(a).
Motions in limine to exclude evidence prior to trial are subject to a rigorous standard of
review. Courts may bar evidence in limine “only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all
potential grounds.” Dartey v. Ford Motor Co., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ind. 2000)
(quoting Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)). If evidence
does not meet this standard, “[the] evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions
of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.” Id. (quoting
Hawthorne, 831 F. Supp. at 1400).
In this Order the Court is not making a final determination on the admissibility of any

evidence. The Court reserves the right to change these rulings during the trial should the Court find
that the evidence or arguments at trial justify such change.

1.

Evidence or argument that the individual Defendants may be personally liable to pay
a judgment against them:

RULING: Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.
Defendants and their attorney(s) shall not indicate this possibility.

2.

Defendants’ Exhibit 20: September 21, 2007, Memorandum from Gary Chief of
Police Thomas A. Houston regarding auxiliary or reserve police personnel:

RULING: Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is DENIED in this regard.
However, if the Memorandum has attachments (such as newspaper articles, offense reports,
etc.), the Court may rule at trial that some or all of the attachments are inadmissible
evidence.

3.

Defendants’ Exhibit 28: January 23, 2007, Phoenix Police Department Auxiliary
Police Officer Agreement; March 5, 2008, letter; and September 29, 2007,
Disclosure Agreement; Exhibit 29: Country Club Hills Department of Police March
6, 2006, letter to Chief William Brown; November 17, 2005, incident summary;
Harvey Police Department November 14, 2005, letter to Chief William Brown; and
copy of 720 ILCS 5/24-1; and Exhibit 30 (it is unclear to the Court at this time what
Defendants' Exhibit 30 is):

RULING: Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is DENIED in this regard.

4.

Any opinion by Defendants' law enforcement procedures expert witness regarding
Plaintiff's state of mind:

RULING: Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.
Defendants' law enforcement procedures expert witness shall not opine as to Plaintiff's state
of mind.

SO ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2011.

s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc: All counsel of record