Brown v. Cain et al

Filing 117

RULING denying 102 Motion in Limine. All objections as to relevance and admissibility of evidence are deferred to trial. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/3/2014. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LEWIS E. BROWN

CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS

11-103-SDD-SCR

BURL CAIN, ET AL.
RULING ON MOTION IN LIMINE1

Plaintiff moves to require Defendants to disclose whether they intend to present
expert testimony and, if so, prays for a Daubert/FRE 702 hearing to determine
admissibility of expert testimony. Plaintiff also moves to exclude evidence of his current
incarceration and reference to his criminal conviction or prison disciplinary record.
Finally, Plaintiff provides “notice of intent to use other crimes or bad acts evidence
under FRE Rule 404(B)”.
I.

EXPERT TESTIMONY
The Defendants have filed a Pretrial Order2 and Amended Pretrial Order3.

Defendants have listed the Plaintiff’s medical records as evidence and have identified
Plaintiff’s treating physician at Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”), Dr. Jonathan
Roundtree; two LSP nurses; and an LSP pharmacist, ostensibly to testify concerning
the Plaintiff’s medical care and treatment and medications.

FRE 702 requires that

expert opinion testimony be demonstratively relevant and reliable. In this case, the
Plaintiff has placed his medical care and treatment at LSP at issue.

1

Rec. Doc. 102.
Rec. Doc. 92.
3
Rec. Doc. 116. 
2

1 

Accordingly,

evidence of that care and treatment is relevant. To the extent the Plaintiff challenges
relevance and/or credibility of any particular testimony, those objections are reserved
until trial. In so far as the Defendants have expressed only an intent to call treating
medical providers and to offer the Plaintiff’s actual medical records, the Plaintiff’s Motion
in Limine is DENIED.

Treating physicians and practitioners may provide medical

opinions formulated during the course of treating a patient.
II.

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF INCARCERATION, CRIMINAL
CONVICTION, AND PRISON DISCIPLINARY RECORD AS CAHARACTER
EVIDENCE
The Plaintiff moves to “forbid Defendants from using the fact of Plaintiff’s current

incarceration or reference to his criminal conviction or prison disciplinary record as
evidence of character in the trial on the merits”4. While it is true that the Defendants
may not offer this evidence for the purposes of showing bad character, the fact of the
Plaintiff’s incarceration will necessarily be evidence at trial. Evidence of the Plaintiff’s
penal disciplinary record and the nature of his conviction are admissible only if probative
of some germane issue other the Plaintiff’s character. To this end, the Plaintiff’s
objections to relevance and admissibility are reserved until the time of trial.
III.

OTHER CRIMES OR BAD ACTS EVIDENCE
Plaintiff notifies the Defendants and the Court that he intends to use evidence of

the named Defendants’ “other crimes or bad acts”, presumably as impeachment
evidence. Evidentiary ruling is deferred to trial on any such matters.

4

Rec. Doc. 102.

2 

In accordance with the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine5 is DENIED and
all objections as to relevance and admissibility of evidence are deferred to trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 3, 2014.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

5

Rec. Doc. 102.

3