Rogers v. Ryan et al

Filing 217

OPINION and ORDER Denying Defendants' 210 211 Motions in Limine. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

Case 4:16-cv-12735-LVP-DRG ECF No. 217 filed 10/29/20

PageID.2414

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
D. RODNEY ROGERS,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 16-12735
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
MATTHEW RYAN, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
(ECF NOS. 210, 211)
This matter is presently before the Court on two motions in limine filed by
Defendants. (ECF Nos. 210, 211.) In one motion, Defendants seek to preclude
Plaintiff from offering any Detroit Police Department policies into evidence. (ECF
No. 210.) In the other motion, Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from offering
any evidence of their prior misconduct. (ECF No. 211.) Plaintiff filed a response
to Defendants’ motions. (ECF No. 212.)
Standard of Review
District courts have broad discretion over matters regarding the admissibility
of evidence at trial. Apponi v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 809 F.2d 1210, 1218 (6th
Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). “Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not
explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the

Case 4:16-cv-12735-LVP-DRG ECF No. 217 filed 10/29/20

PageID.2415

Page 2 of 5

district court’s inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4 (1984). “A ruling on a motion is no more than a
preliminary, or advisory opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the
district court.” United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994). A
court may therefore alter its ruling during the course of the trial. Luce, 469 U.S. at
41-42. Motions in limine may promote “evenhanded and expeditious management
of trials by eliminating evidence that is clearly inadmissible for any purpose.”
Indiana Ins. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (citing
Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997)).
Courts should rarely grant motions in limine that “exclude broad categories of
evidence.” Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir.
1975). The “better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility when they
arise.” Id.
Discussion
Police Department Policies
As Plaintiff is not suing the Detroit Police Department in this matter and,
therefore, has not asserted a Monell claim, Defendants contend that the
department’s policies are irrelevant and should be excluded as evidence at trial
under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Defendants argue that any evidence that they
violated the department’s policies would not establish that they violated Plaintiff’s
2

Case 4:16-cv-12735-LVP-DRG ECF No. 217 filed 10/29/20

PageID.2416

Page 3 of 5

constitutional rights. Defendants maintain that this evidence will only confuse and
mislead the jury and thus, even if relevant, should be excluded under Federal Rule
of Evidence 403.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by
using excessive force against him when they arrested him on July 19, 2013. To
analyze this claim, the jury will have to decide whether the officers’ conduct was
objectively reasonable under the circumstances. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.
386, 397 (1989). Violations of police department or municipal policies do not
demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right. See Coitrone v. Murray, 642 F.
App’x 517, 522 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Cass v. City of Dayton, 770 F.3d 368, 377
(6th Cir. 2014)). Nevertheless, those policies may assist a jury when deciding
whether a defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable as such policies may
reflect what officers are instructed to do under the circumstances presented. See
Philips v. Roane Cnty., Tenn., 534 F.3d 531, 541 (6th Cir. 2008) (relying on prison
protocols to assess whether correctional officers acted in deliberate indifference to
inmate’s serious needs); see also Parnell v. Billingslea, No. 17-cv-12560, 2020
WL 9990017, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 2, 2020) (“a review of the law on this issue
reveals that district courts in this Circuit do not categorically exclude [department
policies as evidence]” and citing cases). Any jury confusion or possible prejudice
can be avoided through an instruction informing the jurors that the violation of
3

Case 4:16-cv-12735-LVP-DRG ECF No. 217 filed 10/29/20

PageID.2417

Page 4 of 5

departmental policy does not establish the violation of a constitutional right and
that such evidence is relevant only to assess the reasonableness of the officers’
actions.
Therefore, the Court is denying Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude
Plaintiff from introducing any Detroit Police Department policies at trial. Neither
party has presented the Court with the exact policies Plaintiff has listed on his
exhibit list. If Plaintiff seeks to use any policy at trial, Defendants may renew their
motion to argue that the policy is not relevant to the conduct at issue.
Prior Misconduct
Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from introducing any “evidence,
argument, or comment from any source whatsoever” reflecting their prior
misconduct. Defendants argue that such evidence, argument, or conduct “must be
excluded as irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, improper character evidence,
impermissible evidence of compromise, lack of personal knowledge by
investigators, and inadmissible hearsay ….” (ECF No. 211 at Pg ID 2393.)
Plaintiff indicates in response that he does not intend to offer such evidence in his
case in chief, but only as possible impeachment evidence.
Whether Plaintiff should be able to use evidence of any defendant’s prior
misconduct for impeachment purposes is a determination that cannot be made
without knowing what the specific evidence is and the context in which it is
4

Case 4:16-cv-12735-LVP-DRG ECF No. 217 filed 10/29/20

PageID.2418

Page 5 of 5

offered. The Court is therefore denying Defendants’ motion to preclude evidence
of prior misconduct. Defendants may renew their motion at trial if specific
evidence is offered.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine Regarding Policies
(ECF No. 210) and Motion in Limine Regarding Past Conduct (ECF No. 211) are
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 29, 2020

5