Cook v. Perkins et al

Filing 67

RULING granting in part and denying in part 39 Plaintiffs Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 1/7/2014. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

STEPHEN P. COOK
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 12-258-SCR
LIVINGSTON PARISH DEPUTY DENNY
PERKINS, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION IN LIMINE
Before the court is a Motion in Limine filed by plaintiff
Stephen P. Cook.

Record document number 39.

The motion is

opposed.1
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine addressed numerous evidentiary
matters.2

After review of the motion and the arguments presented

by the parties, the Motion in Limine is resolved as follows.
Expert Testimony of Dr. Stanley Peters
Plaintiff objected to the defendants presenting testimony from
Dr.

Stanley

Peters,

who

conducted

a

Rule

35,

Fed.R.Civ.P.,

examination of the plaintiff. Plaintiff argued that the defendants
have not shown Dr. Peters is certified in the surgical procedure of
stapedectomy.

Plaintiff also objected to the presentation of Dr.

Peters’ deposition testimony at trial.

Plaintiff argued that he

will be prejudiced because neither he nor the jury will be able to
1

2

Record document number 41.

Plaintiff’s motion included six separate
limine,” but the plaintiff only filed one motion.

“motions

in

question Dr. Peters to clear up any confusion about technical terms
or issues.
Defendants’ submissions clearly show that Dr. Peters is a
licensed physician with board certification in otolaryngology, and
his practice includes this field of medicine.
plaintiff

has

questions

about

Dr.

Peters’

To the extent the
qualifications

and

experience with regard to the specific surgical procedure of
stapedectomy, he can present these questions and arguments at
trial.
Similarly,

any

questions

about

the

admissibility

of

Dr.

Peters’ testimony by deposition at trial cannot be resolved prior
to trial.

At the time this motion was filed and addressed by the

parties, the trial was set for October 21, 2013.

According to the

defendants, the video trial deposition was necessary because at the
time of trial Dr. Peters was scheduled to be out of the country.3
At the time of the pretrial conference on September 19, the
defendants

stated

their

intention

to

schedule

and

take

the

deposition, and the defendants issued a notice of Dr. Peters’ trial
deposition on September 23, scheduling it for October 15, 2013. On
October 9, however, the court consulted with the parties regarding
court funding issues, and the parties agreed that the best course

3

Record document number 41, opposition memorandum, p. 3.
2

was to reschedule the trial for January 13, 2014.4
The record does not indicate whether Dr. Peters was deposed
took on October 15 (or on some other date), or whether the
defendants can establish that Dr. Peters will be unavailable for
the current trial date of January 13-15, 2014.5

Therefore, the

plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude the trial testimony of Dr.
Peters, in person or by deposition, is denied, without prejudice to
the plaintiff’s right to make his objections at the trial.
Evidence, Testimony, and Arguments Related to the Search
Warrant for the Blocker Apartment, and Any Evidence Related to
the Warrant, Including the Return of the Warrant Listing the
Items Seized; Plaintiff’s Arrest and Criminal Charges Brought
Against Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s remaining “motions in limine” all related to
either the search warrant that was being executed at the time of
the events giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims, or to the
plaintiff’s later arrest and criminal charges. This motion and the
defendants’ opposition were filed before the court issued the
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dy. Perkins.6
In that ruling the plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 and state law
for false arrest and imprisonment, and malicious prosecution were

4

Record document number 61.

5

Rule 32(a)(4), Fed.R.Civ.P., describes the circumstances
under which a deposition may be used because the witness is not
available to testify at the trial.
6

Record document number 62.
3

dismissed.

For

this

reason,

any

exhibits,

testimony

and/or

arguments related to the search warrant and its execution, the
plaintiff’s arrest and the criminal offenses with which he was
charged, are not relevant to any of the issues that will be tried
next week.7

As stated in the Ruling on Motion in Limine to Exclude

Certain Evidence at Trial,8 testimony about the existence of the
warrant and that it was being executed on the night of the incident
may be relevant background information, i.e. to explain why the
plaintiff and the deputies were present at the residence. But
exhibits, testimony, and/or arguments beyond that are not relevant
to whether Dy. Perkins used excessive force against the plaintiff
when he took the plaintiff into one of the rooms of the residence.
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to exclude exhibits, testimony
and/or arguments related to (1) the search warrant for the Blocker
apartment, and any evidence related to the warrant, including the
return of the warrant listing the items seized as a result of the
search and (2) the plaintiff’s arrest and criminal charges, has
merit and is granted.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to exclude the

7

Defendants’ opposition essentially acknowledges this fact,
as the arguments made by the defendants explain how the evidence is
relevant to the plaintiff’s claims for false arrest/imprisonment
and malicious prosecution.
8

Record document number 63, p. 3.
4

trial testimony of Dr. Peters, in person or by deposition, is
denied, without prejudice to the plaintiff making his objections at
the trial.
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to exclude exhibits, testimony
and/or arguments related to (1) the search warrant for the Blocker
apartment, and any evidence related to the warrant, including the
return of warrant listing the items seized as a result of the
search and (2) the plaintiff’s arrest and criminal charges, is
granted.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 7, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5