BECKER v. CITY OF EVANSVILLE et al

Filing 190

ORDER denying 184 Motion for Ruling on Admissibility of Exhibits - SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/17/2016. (JRB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
JAMIE BECKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF EVANSVILLE, and
ZACHARY ELFREICH,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:12-cv-00182-TWP-MPB

ORDER ON ADMISSIBILITY OF EXHIBITS
This matter is before the Court on an Amended Motion for Ruling on Admissibility of
Exhibits filed by Plaintiff Jamie Becker (“Mr. Becker”). Mr. Becker requested an order in limine
regarding the admissibility of the exhibits of Defendants the City of Evansville and Zachary
Elfreich (collectively “Defendants”).

Defendants’ Exhibit List (Filing No. 180) designated

twenty-six exhibits for trial. Mr. Becker filed written objections to each of the twenty-six exhibits
(Filing No. 184).
The Court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not
admissible for any purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp.
1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Unless evidence meets this exacting standard, evidentiary rulings
must be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice may be
resolved in context. Id. at 1400–01. Moreover, denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily
mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion is admissible; rather, it only means that, at the
pretrial stage, the Court is unable to determine whether the evidence should be excluded. Id. at
1401.

During the final pretrial conference on November 9, 2016, Mr. Becker’s objections to
Defendants’ exhibits were discussed. Mr. Becker’s objections to Exhibits 200, 201, 202, 215, 216,
217, 218, 219, 220, and 221 were sustained. The Court reserved the issue of admissibility of any
prior criminal conviction for impeachment under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Mr. Becker’s
objections to Exhibits 207–214 were overruled, and his objection to Exhibit 225 was sustained.
Mr. Becker withdrew his objection to the admissibility of Exhibit 204, and the Court took under
advisement the objections to Exhibits 203, 205, 206, 222, 223, and 224, giving Defendants one
week to file a written response. (Filing No. 188 at 3.)
Defendants filed their written response to Mr. Becker’s objections on November 16, 2016
(Filing No. 189). Mr. Becker’s objections to Exhibits 203, 205, 206, 222, 223, and 224 are based
on hearsay and the argument that the exhibits do not fall within one of the exceptions to the hearsay
rule. Defendants respond that the exhibits are admissible under FRE 801(d) as a prior consistent
statement of a declarant-witness to rehabilitate the witness’s credibility. Additionally, Defendants
assert that the exhibits are admissible under FRE 803(5) as an exception to the hearsay rule because
they are recorded recollections that can refresh the recollection of witnesses. Defendants also
assert other various 803(5) exceptions for the various exhibits.
Mr. Becker’s objections and Defendants’ responses to the objections are of a nature that
requires the Court to consider and rule upon admissibility within the context of trial. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES Mr. Becker’s Amended Motion for Ruling on Admissibility of Exhibits
regarding Exhibits 203, 205, 206, 222, 223, and 224 (Filing No. 184). If the Defendants offer
these particular exhibits into evidence during the trial, the Court will rule on any objections at that
time.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/17/2016
2

DISTRIBUTION:
Steven L. Whitehead
[e-mail]
Michael C. Keating
KEATING & LAPLANTE
[e-mail]
Jason Michael Spindler
SPINDLER LAW
[e-mail]
Keith W. Vonderahe
ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS
[e-mail]
Robert L. Burkart
ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS
[e-mail]
Jean Marie Blanton
ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS
[e-mail]

3