BECKER v. CITY OF EVANSVILLE et al

Filing 209

ORDER ON (1) DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST AND (2) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE - Because this information could be unfairly prejudicial to Mr. Becker and may not be relevant to the issues at trial, the Cour t GRANTS Mr. Becker's Motion in Limine 208 . The Defendants are ordered to refrain from eliciting any testimony from Ms. Riddle regarding any prior acts of violence by Mr. Becker against Ms. Riddle, Ms. Riddle's husband, or Mr. Becker' ;s mother; Mr. Becker's mother's alleged fear of Mr. Becker; and Mr. Becker's alleged abuse of alcohol unless the Defendants first establish relevancy and admissibility of such testimony outside the presence of the jury. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/28/2016. (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 (1) DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
EXHIBIT LIST AND (2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
This matter is before the Court on Defendants the City of Evansville’s and Zachary
Elfreich’s (collectively “Defendants”) Objection to Plaintiff’s Amended Exhibit List (Filing No.
204) and Plaintiff Jamie Becker’s (“Mr. Becker”) Motion in Limine regarding the testimony of
witness Lacy Riddle (Filing No. 208).
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 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.
A. Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Amended Exhibit List
The Defendants object to Mr. Becker’s Amended Exhibit List, Filing No. 200, asserting
that Exhibits 100, 101, and 102 were not previously disclosed and are irrelevant to the issues for

trial. The Defendants argue that these exhibits, previously unidentified standard operating
procedures of the Evansville Police Department (“EDP”), are not relevant because the issue for
the jury to decide is whether Defendant Elfreich used reasonable force, not whether less lethal
force was available or should have been used.
Exhibits 100 and 101, EPD’s standard operating procedures for “Flash/Bang Device” and
“Swat/Hostage Negotiating Teams,” are not relevant to the issues for trial and were not timely
disclosed. Therefore, the Court sustains Defendants’ objection to these exhibits.
Exhibit 102, EPD’s standard operating procedure for “Warrant Service Matrix,” may be
relevant to the issues for trial, but it appear that this exhibit was not timely disclosed. The Court
takes this objection under advisement, and Mr. Becker is given until 3:00 p.m. Evansville time
on Monday, November 28, 2016, to file a response to the Defendants’ objection to Exhibit 102.
Mr. Becker should explain why Exhibit 102 was not timely disclosed and how the exhibit is
relevant for trial.
The Defendants object to Mr. Becker’s Exhibit 103, “Summary of Plaintiff’s medical
expenses and medical expenses,” arguing that it “is not admissible as it does not accurately reflect
the amounts, if any, that Plaintiff paid for said medical bills, the amounts, if any, marked down by
the medical provider, and the amounts, if any, paid by insurance or government funding, thus
further reducing said medical bills.” (Filing No. 204 at 2.) The Defendants may challenge this
exhibit during cross examination. Accordingly, this is a proper argument to be made to the jury to
reduce any damages amount, not to exclude the exhibit, and thus, the Court overrules Defendants’
objection to this exhibit.

2

B. Mr. Becker’s Motion in Limine
In his Motion in Limine, Mr. Becker asks the Court to limit the testimony of witness Lacy
Riddle (“Ms. Riddle”), who is listed on Defendants’ trial witness list. Ms. Riddle, the sister of Mr.
Becker, was recently deposed by Defendants, and she testified regarding Mr. Becker’s prior acts
of violence against family members, Mr. Becker’s alcohol use, and Mr. Becker’s mother’s fear of
Mr. Becker. During her deposition, Ms. Riddle acknowledged that she did not convey any of this
information to Defendant Elfreich prior to the March 11, 2011 incident at issue for trial.
Mr. Becker asserts that this information is highly prejudicial and irrelevant because
Defendant Elfreich did not know of the information at the time of the incident. Mr. Becker asks
that the Court order the “Defendants not inquire, through the testimony of Lacy Riddle, regarding
a) any acts of violence by the Plaintiff directed at her, her mother, or her husband, b) her mother’s
alleged fear of the Plaintiff, and c) the Plaintiff’s alleged abuse of alcohol, until such time as the
relevance and admissibility of such testimony is demonstrated to the Court outside the presence of
the jury.” (Filing No. 208 at 1–2.)
Because this information could be unfairly prejudicial to Mr. Becker and may not be
relevant to the issues at trial, the Court GRANTS Mr. Becker’s Motion in Limine (Filing No. 208).
The Defendants are ordered to refrain from eliciting any testimony from Ms. Riddle regarding
any prior acts of violence by Mr. Becker against Ms. Riddle, Ms. Riddle’s husband, or Mr.
Becker’s mother; Mr. Becker’s mother’s alleged fear of Mr. Becker; and Mr. Becker’s alleged
abuse of alcohol unless the Defendants first establish relevancy and admissibility of such testimony
outside the presence of the jury.
SO ORDERED.

3

Date: 11/28/2016

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]

4