Poullard v. McCoy et al

Filing 136

RULING denying 131 Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike without prejudice to the plaintiff objecting to the introduction of medical records at the trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 6/13/2014. (SMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOHN POULLARD (#98999)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

ANTHONY MCCOY, ET AL

NUMBER 12-299-SDD-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION IN LIMINE
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and
Motion in Limine.

Record document number 131.1

Plaintiff moved to strike the defendants’ qualified immunity
defense on the ground that is was asserted by the defendants in
summary judgment motions,2 the court denied the motions as to the
qualified immunity defense,3 and the defendants did not appeal the
denial.
The court found that because there were material fact in
dispute,

the

issue

of

whether

the

defendants

have

immunity could not be resolved on summary judgment.

qualified

The court did

not find that the defendants do not have qualified immunity.
Because the denial of the defendants’ summary judgment motions as
to their qualified immunity defense was based on finding that there

1

Plaintiff filed a Supplement to Plaintiff[‘s] Motion to
Strike and Motion in Limine. Record document number 133.
2

3

Record document numbers 91 and 92.

Record document number 109, Magistrate Judge’s Report;
record document number 115, Ruling.

are disputed issues of material facts, an immediate appeal of the
ruling would have been dismissed.4
Insofar as the plaintiff objected to the defendants offering
medical records that do not related to his treatment for glaucoma,
the

better

course

is

for

the

plaintiff

to

object

to

the

introduction of such records if the defendants actually offer them
in evidence at the trial.

At that point the district judge will be

in a best position to assess whether any particular medical record
is or is not relevant to any issue remaining in the case.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion in
Limine is denied, without prejudice to the plaintiff objecting to
the introduction of medical records at the trial.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 13, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

See Pasco ex rel. Pasco v. Knoblauch, 566 F.3d 572 (5th Cir.
2009) (denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment is
immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine if based
on an issue of law; if district court found that genuine factual
disputes exist, plaintiff’s version of the facts is accepted as
true to the extent supported by the summary judgment record);
Whittington v. Maxwell, 455 Fed.Appx. 450 (5th Cir. 2011) (on
interlocutory appeal appellate court lack the power to review
district court’s decision that a genuine factual dispute exists;
public official must be prepared to concede best view of the facts
to plaintiff and discuss only legal issues raised by appeal).