Stallins v. City of Princeton et al
Filing
68
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 48 Motion in Limine; denying 49 Motion in Limine; denying 50 Motion to Exclude. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 10/21/2014. cc: Counsel(KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-00157
DENNIS STALLINS,
Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF PRINCETON,
CITY OF PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
TIMOTHY MERRICK,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon three pending motions: Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion
(Docket No. 50), Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Docket No. 48) and Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
(Docket No. 49). Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Filing Attachment to Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion.
(Docket No. 65). Defendants have responded to Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine. (Docket No. 66).
This matter is now fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's
Motions are DENIED.
DISCUSSION
I.
Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion
Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion requests that Court exclude Defendants’ expert, John J. Ryan,
from testifying as an expert in this case. (Docket No. 50). Plaintiff argues that Officer Timothy
Merrick is bound by the Princeton Police Department Policy and Procedures, and that he violated
those procedures in removing the handcuffs from Stallins without first discovering all weapons
in the vehicle; Plaintiff argues that Ryan’s report is based on the force used after the handcuffs
were removed and is thus irrelevant. Plaintiff also notes that Defendants were tardy in disclosing
their expert. In response, Defendants argue that the Police Department’s policy and procedures
1
do not establish constitutional bounds, and that their expert’s testimony is relevant to this case.
Defendants also argue that the delay did not prejudice the Plaintiff.
The Court finds that the minor delay in disclosure did not prejudice the Plaintiff.
Additionally, because the expert testimony will not confuse the issues and is not more prejudicial
than it is probative, Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion is DENIED.
II.
Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine
Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine requests that any witnesses for the Defendants be
prohibited from “testifying regarding any force necessary other than the force required by the
Policy and Procedure of the Princeton Police Department.” (Docket No. 48). Plaintiff argues
that Officer Timothy Merrick violated the Princeton Police Department Policy and Procedures
and that witnesses for the defense are thus “not entitled to testify regarding the use of force that
came about based upon the negligence” of Officer Merrick.
Id. Plaintiff then asks that
Defendants’ expert be excluded based on Defendants’ late disclosure.
In support, Plaintiff
argues that Defendants late disclosure has prejudiced the Plaintiff and that no good cause has
been shown. In response, Defendants argue that the Police Department’s policy and procedures
do not establish constitutional bounds, and that testimony regarding Defendants’ use of force is
relevant to this case.
Additionally, Defendants argue that their delay was reasonable.
Defendants sent a disclosure letter to Plaintiff’s counsel one day late. They state that their delay
was due to Plaintiff’s expert reviewing audio and video recordings of the arrest. Finally, they
note that the delay caused no harm to Plaintiff, and that the Court has discretion in this matter.
The Court finds that information regarding the use of force in this case before and after
Stallins was handcuffed is relevant and will not be excluded. Additionally, the Court finds that
2
the delay in disclosure did not prejudice the Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine is
DENIED.
III.
Plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine
Plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine requests that the Court prohibit the Defendants from
discussing or asking the Plaintiff questions about the charges against him of carrying a concealed
deadly weapon on August 20, 2012. Plaintiff argues that this is prejudicial and “inflames and
misleads the jury.” (Docket No. 49). In response, the Defendants note that Stallins pled guilty to
these charges and was sentenced to two years of probation. They argue that his conviction and
guilty plea are relevant and admissible, as they go “to the central action in the matter.” (Docket
No. 66). The Court agrees that this information is relevant, thus Plaintiff’s Second Motion in
Limine is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, and consistent with the Court’s conclusions above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion (Docket No. 50), Plaintiff’s
Motion in Limine (Docket No. 48) and Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Docket No. 49) are
DENIED.
October 21, 2014
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?