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)

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
[phone]

3