Lancaster v. Lakey et al

Filing 101

ORDER RESOLVING Motions in Limine and Setting Date of 4/8/2019 for Proposed Alternation to Jury Instructions and Verdict Form, - GRANTING by Concurrence 84 Motion in Limine; GRANTING IN PART 85 Motion in Limine; TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT 86 Motion in Limine; GRANTING 87 Motion in Limine and DENYING 88 Motion in Limine; 89 Motion in Limine; 90 Motion in Limine; and 91 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCOTT LANCASTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-14093

BOUCHARD, SANCHEZ, AND KIRBY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SETTING DATE FOR PROPOSED
ALTERATIONS TO JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT FORM
Pending before the court are various motions in limine filed by both Plaintiff and
Defendants. On April 3, 2019, the court held the second of two telephonic final pretrial
conferences on the record during which the court addressed and ruled on these
motions. The court also addressed the jury instructions and verdict form. At the request
of the parties, the court will permit counsel to submit proposed alternatives to certain of
the jury instructions and the verdict form.
For the reasons stated on the record,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to preclude testimony from “potential
experts” is GRANTED BY CURRURENCE. (ECF No. 84).
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence listed in pretrial
order (ECF No. 85) is GRANTED IN PART. It is GRANTED as to the Genesee County
Sheriff’s Office procedures other than the use of deadly force and firearms, Dr.
Shiener’s records and related evidence, affidavit of Jason Gould, and testimony related

to the dismissed Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment claims. It is TAKEN UNDER
ADVISEMENT on all other grounds pending development of predicate testimony at trial.
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s “bad acts” (ECF No. 86) is
TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT pending development of predicate testimony at trial.
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence related to the mental
health of Plaintiff’s mother (ECF No. 87) is GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence and police reports relating
to Plaintiff’s arrest, discovery responses, and portions of the complaint1 (ECF No. 88),
motion to exclude school records (ECF No. 89), motion to exclude other police contacts
(ECF No. 90), and motion to strike experts (ECF No. 91) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will submit any proposed alterations
to the jury instructions and verdict form to the case manager by April 8, 2019.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 4, 2019
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, April 4, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

1

The court determines that the complaint is admissible in view of Barnes v. OwensCorning Fiberglas Corp., 201 F.3d 815, 829 (6th Cir. 2000) (“As a general matter,
complaints are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(a) and specifically under the case law
set forth in American Title.”).
S:\Cleland\Cleland\HEK\Civil\16-14093.LANCASTER.motions.in.limine.HEK.RHC.docx

2