CARTER v. INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 105

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE - This cause is before the Court on the Defendants' motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 74 & 92 ). The motions are fully briefed and the Court, being duly advised, resolves them as set forth below. (See Order.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 9/23/2016. (BRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RICHARD B. CARTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Cause No. 1:14-cv-1845-WTL-DML
)
)
)
)

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
This cause is before the Court on the Defendants’ motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 74 & 92).
The motions are fully briefed and the Court, being duly advised, resolves them as set forth
below.
The Court notes that the granting of a motion in limine is not a final ruling regarding the
admissibility of the evidence at issue. Rather, it simply prohibits any party from eliciting
testimony regarding or otherwise mentioning a particular issue during trial without first seeking
leave of Court outside of the presence of the jury. Therefore, a party who wishes to elicit
testimony or introduce evidence regarding a topic covered by a motion in limine that has been
granted should request a sidebar conference during the appropriate point in the trial, at which
time the Court will determine how best to proceed. Parties should always err on the side of
caution and interpret rulings on motions in limine broadly, requesting sidebars before eliciting
testimony or offering evidence that is even arguably covered by a ruling in limine and avoiding
mention of such topics during voir dire, opening statements, and closing argument. Counsel
shall also carefully instruct each witness regarding subjects that should not be mentioned or
alluded to during testimony unless and until a finding of admissibility is made by the Court.

The Defendants combine several motions into one filing. Each of them is addressed, in
turn, below.
Evidence tending to suggest that the IMPD used excessive force, mistreated, or otherwise acted
improperly with respect to Dean Hadley
At the final pretrial conference, the Court requested from the parties proposals regarding
the suggested scope of such evidence. Having reviewed the information provided by the parties,
the Court GRANTS the Defendants’ motion as follows. The Plaintiff’s impressions of what he
observed are relevant to his argument that Defendant Keyes did not have probable cause to arrest
him. The Plaintiff will be allowed to testify regarding only his impressions of what he witnessed
of Hadley’s arrest. He may testify along the same lines as and at the level of detail that he
described the arrest in his complaint and in response to the Defendants’ interrogatory on this
issue (Dkt. No. 92-1 at 3-4).
To be clear, testimony by Hadley, the case report for Hadley’s arrest, photos of the victim
that Hadley allegedly battered, the medical records associated with Hadley’s intake medical
screening at the Arrestee Processing Center, and Hadley’s booking photo are excluded from trial.
Such evidence is not probative of whether Defendant Keyes had probable cause to arrest Carter
for public intoxication and would, in essence, cause a “mini-trial” regarding Hadley’s arrest.
The Court intends to read a limiting instruction to the jury prior to Carter’s testimony
regarding his impressions of Hadley’s arrest and again as part of the final jury instructions. The
Court asks that by no later than Wednesday, September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff and the
Defendants each provide a proposed limiting instruction regarding the proper use of the evidence
described above.

2

Evidence of the Plaintiff’s claimed income and financial losses
The Defendants seek to exclude evidence of the Plaintiff’s claimed income and financial
losses because the Plaintiff never provided to the Defendants a figure or an estimate for the
amount of his claimed lost income, despite the Defendants’ request for it during discovery. They
argue that they are, therefore, “severely prejudiced by this evidence because discovery has long
been closed and they have no opportunity before trial to make inquiry with [the] Plaintiff as to
how he has now, finally, arrived at numbers he could not previously determine.” Dkt. No. 74 at
8. The Plaintiff, however, still has not arrived at a lost income figure. Rather, he responds that
his lost income “has remained constantly changing” and that he cannot determine his lost
earnings until he hears testimony from Argyle Nelson regarding the jobs Nelson chose not to
award the Plaintiff following his arrest. Dkt. No. 87 at 5. He further responds that, following
Nelson’s testimony, “[the] Plaintiff and Defendants will have equal opportunity to present to the
jury their respective calculation of [the] Plaintiff’s lost earnings damages based on [] Nelson’s
testimony and the tax returns and invoices that have been shared during discovery.” Id. at 6.
During the final pretrial conference, Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that he did not comply
with the requirements in section III.E. of the Case Management Plan, requiring the Plaintiff to
provide the Defendants with a statement of special damages on or before April 12, 2015.
Plaintiff’s counsel stated he provided special damages information to the Defendants in response
to the Defendants’ interrogatories and that no new information developed regarding his damages.
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s interrogatory response regarding damages (Dkt. No. 74-1)
and notes that no value is given for lost income.
Given that the Plaintiff provided no value for his income losses to the Defendants during
discovery, failed to comply with the Case Management Plan, and at the final pretrial conference,

3

still did not disclose a value for his lost income, the Court GRANTS the Defendants’ motion as
to this issue.
Evidence about the impact that the Plaintiff’s arrest had on Aerial Video Systems, ESPN, or the
production of the WNBA Finals game
The Defendants seek to exclude evidence of the impact the Plaintiff’s arrest had on Aerial
Video Systems, ESPN, and the production of the WNBA Finals game because it claims such
evidence is not relevant to the issues at trial. They explain that the jury must consider the issue
of the Plaintiff’s damages, not damages to Aerial Video Systems, ESPN, or the production of the
WNBA Finals game. The Court agrees and GRANTS the Defendants’ motion. However, to the
extent that the effect of the arrest on the Plaintiff includes concern, anxiety, et cetera regarding
the impact that his arrest would have on Aerial Video Systems, ESPN, or the production of the
WNBA Finals game, such evidence is relevant to the issues at trial and is, therefore, not
excluded.
Plaintiff’s Notice of Tort Claim
and
Evidence relating to “high profile” events in places like Ferguson, Missouri, or Baltimore,
Maryland, the overzealousness of police officers, or other incidents of alleged police misconduct
and
Evidence relating to other lawsuits filed against the City of Indianapolis and/or its police officers
The Plaintiff does not object to these motions; accordingly, they are GRANTED.
SO ORDERED: 9/23/16
_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to all counsel of record via electronic communication
4