Boyd v. City of Warren et al

Filing 109

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion in Limine 97 and Motion to Strike Sewick 106 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (BSau)

Case 2:16-cv-12741-LJM-RSW ECF No. 109, PageID.2626 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES FRANCIS BOYD,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-12741
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

v.
COLIN MCCABE, and
JEFFREY MASSERANG, JR.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION IN LIMINE [97] AND MOTION TO STRIKE SEWICK [106]
Charles Boyd alleges that Colin McCabe and Jeffrey Masserang used excessive
force when arresting him and then, later, when booking him. The two police officers
deny those allegations. Following lengthy litigation, this case is ready for trial.
McCabe and Masserang filed a motion in limine to prevent Boyd from
introducing certain evidence at trial. (ECF No. 97.) The Court ruled on that motion
at the final pretrial conference. Briefly, the Court ruled as follows: (1) because Boyd
failed to provide timely expert disclosures, he is precluded from offering any expert
testimony at trial (subject to a follow-up ruling as to Dr. Sewick); (2) evidence
regarding the dismissed claims and parties is not admissible; and (3) Boyd is
permitted to show portions of the video that are relevant to the claims being tried in
slow motion. Accordingly, McCabe and Masserang’s motion in limine (ECF No. 97) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Case 2:16-cv-12741-LJM-RSW ECF No. 109, PageID.2627 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 2

McCabe and Masserang have also filed a motion to strike the expert testimony
and report of Bradley Sewick, Ph.D. For the reasons stated on the record today (July
7), Sewick may testify as to his observations, examination, testing, diagnosis,
prognosis, and prescribed treatment that was revealed to the Defendants by
December 15, 2018. Sewick, however, will not be permitted to testify as to the cause
of Boyd’s conditions, including that they were caused by or secondary to an assault
on May 28, 2014. Additionally, if Defendants desire, they are permitted to depose
Sewick in advance of his testimony; Boyd is required to work with Sewick and
Defendants’ counsel to arrange that deposition. If Sewick does not make himself
available, he will be precluded from testifying. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to
strike (ECF No. 106) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2022

s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
United States District Judge

2