King et al v. Williams

Filing 81

ORDER Deferring Ruling on Defendant's 65 Motion in Limine and Granting Plaintiffs' 66 , 67 and 68 Motions in Limine. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHERYL KING and
KEVIN KING,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 12-cv-15116
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
TIFFANEY WILLIAMS,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION
IN LIMINE (ECF #65) AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE (ECF ## 66, 67, 68)
On July 20, 2015, the Court held a Final Pretrial Conference in this action.
At that time, the Court heard argument on four motions in limine: one filed by
Defendant Tiffaney Williams (“Defendant”) and three filed by Plaintiffs Cheryl
King (“Ms. King”) and Kevin King (“Mr. King”) ( collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
Defendant’s motion in limine sought to exclude evidence at trial of her
termination from the Michigan Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”). (See
ECF #65.) For all of the reasons stated at the Final Pretrial Conference, the Court
will DEFER a final ruling on Defendant’s motion at this time. At trial, outside the
presence of the jury, the Court will allow Defendant to testify and create a record
with respect to her termination from the MDOC. The Court will then rule on

1

Defendant’s motion. Until the Court issues its final ruling on Defendant’s motion,
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel shall not reference Defendant’s termination with
the MDOC.
Plaintiffs’ first motion in limine sought to exclude at trial any reference to
the nature of Mr. King’s prior convictions. (See ECF #66.) For all of the reasons
stated at the Final Pretrial Conference, this motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall
not reference at trial the nature or number of Mr. King’s past convictions.
Defendant shall, however, be allowed to refer to Mr. King as a convicted felon.
Plaintiffs’ second motion in limine sought to exclude at trial any reference to
Mr. King’s prior lawsuits and grievances. (See ECF #67.) For all of the reasons
stated at the Final Pretrial Conference, this motion is GRANTED. Unless and
until the Court orders otherwise, Defendant shall not reference at trial Mr. King’s
past lawsuits or grievances.

If, during trial, Defendant believes that either

Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel have opened the door to such evidence, the Court
will allow Defendant, outside the presence of the jury, to ask the Court to
reconsider this ruling.
Plaintiffs’ final motion in limine sought to exclude at trial any reference to
previous non-related visitor restrictions and warnings provided to Plaintiffs. (See
ECF #68.) For all of the reasons stated at the Final Pretrial Conference, this
motion is GRANTED. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, Defendant

2

shall not reference at trial any previous non-related visitor restrictions and
warnings provided to Plaintiffs. If during trial, Defendant believes that either
Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel have opened the door to such evidence, the Court
will allow Defendant, outside the presence of the jury, to ask the Court to
reconsider this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on July 22, 2015, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3