Wong et al v. Detroit Entertainment et al

Filing 66

ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 47 Motion in Limine Regarding Videotapes Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JENNY WONG, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 14-cv-13798 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC et al. Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING VIDEOTAPES (ECF #47) WITHOUT PREJUDICE This action arises out of an investigation into, and arrest of, Plaintiff Jenny Wong (“Ms. Wong”). Ms. Wong has asserted claims for, among other things, arrest without probable cause and malicious prosecution. (See Sec. Am. Compl., ECF #55.) Ms. Wong (and Co-Plaintiff Michael Chung) have now filed a motion in limine to preclude certain Defendants from testifying as to their perceptions of what is depicted on a videotape (the “Motion”). (See ECF #47.) Plaintiffs argue that the Court should not permit the Defendants to present this testimony to the jury on the issue of whether there was probable cause to arrest Ms. Wong. (See id.) 1 The Court concludes that the Motion is premature. As the Court previously ordered (see ECF #59), all parties submitted supplemental briefs on the issue of whether the Court or the jury decides the question of whether there was probable cause for Ms. Wong’s arrest. (See ECF ## 60, 64, and 65.) All parties agree that if the facts concerning probable cause are undisputed, the question of probable cause is to be decided by the Court. (See id.) Defendants have further informed the Court that they intend to file a motion for summary judgment in which they will argue that the Court should decide the probable cause question as a matter of law. (See ECF #64 at 5-8, Pg. ID 580-83; ECF #65 at 3-4, Pg. ID 587-88.) Because it is not yet clear that the question of probable cause – or any factual disputes related to that question – will be presented to the jury, it is too early to determine what testimony, if any, the Defendants may present concerning their perceptions of the video tape. Plaintiffs may ask the Court to re-visit this issue, if appropriate, following the Court’s ruling on the to-be-filed motions for summary judgment. At that time, Plaintiffs may also renew their request for the additional relief sought in the Motion. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion (ECF #47) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 5, 2016 2 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on April 5, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (313) 234-5113 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?