Dotson et al v. Edmonson et al

Filing 154

ORDER re 119 Motion in Limine to Challenge the Confidentiality of Documents Pursuant to Protective Order, and for Leave to use Documents at Trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/22/2018. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LYLE DOTSON, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-15371

COL. MICHAEL EDMONSON, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E” (1)

ORDER
On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff Lyle Dotson filed a motion in limine to challenge the
confidentiality of documents produced by the Louisiana State Police (“LSP”) under the
terms of the protective order entered in this case. 1 Plaintiff “challenges the designation of
these documents as including ‘Confidential Information under the Protective Order and
requests that the Court remove them from the terms of the Protective Order, so they may
be used as exhibits” at trial.” 2 Plaintiff seeks to introduce at trial the complete LSP Policies
and Procedures Manual, 3 as well as the following individual policies from the LSP Policies
and Procedures Manual: (1) the Use of Force policy; 4 (2) the Bias-Based Profiling policy; 5
(3) the Arrests and Searches policy; 6 (4) the Code of Conduct and Ethics; 7 (5) the Criminal
Patrols policy; 8 (6) the Enforcement Policy; 9 and (7) the Pursuit / Roadblock policy. 10 As
Plaintiff explains in his response to Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s proposed trial
exhibits, the LSP policy manual is “an essential means of proving Plaintiff’s claim against

R. Doc. 119. R. Doc. 66.
R. Doc. 119-1 at 2.
3 Proposed Trial Exhibit 57.
4 Proposed Trial Exhibit 58.
5 Proposed Trial Exhibit 12.
6 Proposed Trial Exhibit 13.
7 Proposed Trial Exhibit 14.
8 Proposed Trial Exhibit 59.
9 Proposed Trial Exhibit 60.
10 Proposed Trial Exhibit 61.
1

2

1

Defendant Edmonson for the promulgation of unconstitutional policies or the failure to
promulgate policies.” 11 Plaintiff does not, however, argue that the LSP policies are
relevant with regard to the claims against the individual troopers.
Plaintiff also seeks to introduce the LSP arrest records from the French Quarter
during the period September 28, 2015 – October 18, 2015. 12
Defendants Calvin Anderson, Rene Bodet, Michael Edmonson, Tagee Journee, and
Huey McCartney filed a response to the motion. 13 Defendants state they do not object to
these exhibits on confidentiality grounds, but they do object to the exhibits as irrelevant,
for the reasons stated in their motion in limine and objections to trial exhibits. 14
Defendants also object to the motion to the extent Plaintiff seeks to disclose the
documents outside of trial. 15
The Court has separately addressed Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s proposed
trial exhibits 57, 58, 59, 60, and 61, and has ruled that the exhibits are inadmissible on
relevance grounds. 16 This motion is therefore moot with respect to these exhibits.
With regard to the remaining exhibits, the Court finds that exhibits 12, 13, and 14
are irrelevant to the present matter. Exhibit 12, the LSP policy on Biased-Based Profiling,
sets administrative guidelines on the training, reporting, and investigation of police
actions that relies on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin. Exhibit
13, the LSP policy on arrests and searches, states the LSP procedures for arrest, use of
handcuffs during arrest, and searches. Exhibit 14 is the LSP Code of Conduct and Ethics.
Although Exhibits 12 and 13 set internal standards that govern the Defendants’ alleged
R. Doc. 144 at 7.
Proposed Trial Exhibit 34.
13 R. Doc. 131.
14 Id. See also R. Doc. 117; R. Doc. 136.
15 R. Doc. 131 at 2.
16 R. Doc. 152.
11

12

2

conduct, the Court finds that police policies may not be entered into evidence in order to
establish a constitutional standard or prove a constitutional violation against an
individual officer. 17 As the Tenth Circuit has noted, “[t]hat an arrest violated police
department procedures does not make it more or less likely that the arrest implicates the
Fourth Amendment, and evidence of the violation is therefore irrelevant.” 18 In other
words, although the LSP policies may give state police officers “a framework to evaluate
officer conduct and job performance,” the policies “shed[] no light on what may or may
not be considered ‘objectively reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment given the infinite
set of disparate circumstances which officers might encounter.” 19 The LSP policies at issue
Exhibits 12, 13, and 14 are therefore inadmissible because they lack relevance. This
motion is also moot with respect to these exhibits.
The Court also finds that Exhibit 34, except as to pages LSPProd00191 –
LSPProd00195, is irrelevant. The motion is GRANTED with respect to pages
LSPProd00191 – LSPProd00195 of Exhibit 34. The motion is moot with respect to the
remainder of the exhibit.
With respect to the broader public disclosure of documents currently under
protective order outside the confines of this case, the Court will provide an opportunity
for the parties and the Louisiana State Police to brief this issue after the trial concludes.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of January, 2018.
________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See, e.g., Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 2005).
Id.
19 Herrera v. Aguilar, 2013 WL 5354518 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2013) (quoting Thompson v. City of Chicago,
472 F.3d 444, 453 (7th Cir. 2006) (a violation of the Chicago Police Department’s General Orders “would
have failed to advance the inquiry” into whether an officer violated the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights
by using excessive force”)).
17

18

3