Hutchinson v. City of St. Paul et al

Filing 68

ORDER. 1. Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (Doc. No. 57 ) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 2. Defendant Officer David Stokes' (Stokes) Motions in Limine (Doc. No. 44 ) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 3. Defendants Officer Laur a Boulduan (Boulduan), Officer Jeffrey Lewis (Lewis), and the City of St. Paul's (St. Paul) Motions in Limine (Doc. No. 38 ) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (See Order for additional information.) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 10/09/2014. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Gerald R. Hutchinson,

Civil No. 13-137 (DWF/SER)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Officer David Stokes, Officer Laura
Boulduan, and Officer Jeffrey Lewis, in their
individual capacities; and City of St. Paul,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________
Paul Applebaum, Esq., and Andrew Irlbeck, Esq., Applebaum Law Firm, counsel for
Plaintiff.
Margaret A. Skelton, Esq., and Timothy A. Sullivan, Esq., Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney,
P.A., counsel for Defendant Officer David Stokes.
Adam M. Niblick, Assistant City Attorney, St. Paul City Attorney’s Office, counsel for
Defendants Officer Laura Boulduan, Officer Jeffrey Lewis, and the City of St. Paul.
_______________________________________________________________________
This matter came before the Court for pretrial hearing on October 8, 2014.
Consistent with, and in addition to the Court’s rulings and remarks from the bench, and
based upon the memoranda, pleadings, and arguments of counsel, and the Court being
otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine (Doc. No. [57]) are GRANTED IN PART

and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence regarding Plaintiff’s false

statements to a police officer in 1973 is GRANTED pursuant to the Court’s Rule

403 analysis.
b.

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence regarding Plaintiff’s simple

robbery conviction in 1973 and indecent exposure conviction in 1982 is
GRANTED pursuant to the Court’s Rule 104, Rule 403, and Rule 609 analysis.
c.

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence or testimony regarding Ms.

Debbie Hayden’s Order for Protection against Plaintiff is GRANTED pursuant to
the Court’s Rule 104 and Rule 403 analysis. However, the Court reserves the right
to revisit this issue in the event that either party contends that the other has
“opened the door” during trial.
d.

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence or testimony regarding

Plaintiff’s familial relation to an individual charged in the murder of Officer James
Sackett is DENIED AS MOOT as Defendants have indicated that they do not
intend to elicit or present such evidence or testimony.
e.

Plaintiff’s motion to instruct the jury that Plaintiff was never charged

nor convicted of any crimes arising out of the March 28, 2006 incident or the
murder of Officer James Sackett is DENIED. Absent further order by the Court,
neither party shall discuss nor reference whether Plaintiff was charged or
convicted of any crimes arising out of this incident or the murder of Officer James
Sackett. However, the Court reserves the right to revisit this issue prior to final
jury instructions. In revisiting this issue, the Court will consider both the manner
and timing of each relevant jury instruction.

2

2.

Defendant Officer David Stokes’ (“Stokes”) Motions in Limine (Doc.

No. [44]) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

Defendant Stokes’ motion to prohibit Plaintiff or any witness from

presenting from presenting testimony, documentary evidence, or argument
regarding any Internal Affairs investigations, recommendations, preliminary
discipline, or final discipline related to the facts underlying this case is
GRANTED pursuant to the Court’s Rule 403 analysis. The Court also concludes
that to the extent that the internal records reference Defendant Officers’
commendation histories, such evidence shall be presumptively inadmissible
pursuant to the Court’s Rule 104 and Rule 403 analysis.
b.

Defendant Stokes’ motion to prohibit Plaintiff or any witness from

presenting testimony, documentary evidence, or argument regarding or calling into
question the lawfulness, reasonableness, or motivation for the Defendants’ March
28, 2007 arrest of Plaintiff is DENIED AS MOOT as Plaintiff has indicated that
he does not intend to present such testimony, evidence, or argument.
c.

Defendant Stokes’ motion to prohibit Plaintiff or any witness from

presenting testimony, documentary evidence, or argument regarding the Ramsey
County Attorney’s Office’s decision not to prosecute Plaintiff for incidents
underlying his March 28, 2007 arrest is GRANTED. Absent further order by the
Court, neither party shall discuss nor reference whether Plaintiff was charged by
the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office for any crimes arising out of this incident.

3

However, the Court reserves the right to revisit this issue prior to final jury
instructions.
d.

Defendant Stokes’ motion to prohibit Plaintiff or any witness from

presenting testimony, documentary evidence, or argument related to claims that
have been dismissed from this lawsuit is DENIED AS MOOT as Plaintiff has
indicated that he does not intend to present such testimony, evidence, or argument.
e.

Defendant Stokes’ motion to prohibit Plaintiff or any witness from

presenting testimony, documentary evidence, or argument based upon any
evidence that was not produced prior to the fact discovery deadline is DENIED.
3.

Defendants Officer Laura Boulduan (“Boulduan”), Officer Jeffrey Lewis

(“Lewis”), and the City of St. Paul’s (“St. Paul”) Motions in Limine (Doc. No. [38]) are
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

Defendants Boulduan, Lewis, and St. Paul’s motion to prohibit

Plaintiff, his counsel, and any witness from presenting testimony, documentary
evidence, or argument regarding evidence of complaints, internal investigations,
and officer discipline is GRANTED pursuant to the Court’s Rule 403 analysis.
b.

Defendants Boulduan, Lewis, and St. Paul’s motion to prohibit

Plaintiff, his counsel, and any witness from presenting testimony, documentary
evidence, or argument regarding the disposition of the criminal investigation
leading to Plaintiff’s arrest is GRANTED pursuant to Court’s Rule 403 analysis.
c.

Defendants Boulduan, Lewis, and St. Paul’s motion to prohibit

Plaintiff, his counsel, and any witness from presenting testimony, documentary
4

evidence, or argument regarding opinion evidence on the causation of Plaintiff’s
psychiatric condition(s) and the psychiatric records is DENIED as follows:
i.

The motion is DENIED to the extent that Defendants seek to

prevent Plaintiff himself from testifying on the cause of his psychiatric
condition(s). Such testimony shall be presumptively admissible, subject to
a proper foundation being established pursuant to Rule 104 and subject to
satisfying the evidentiary parameters of Article 4 and Article 7. The Court
reserves the right to revisit the issue before or at trial.
ii.

The motion is DENIED to the extent Defendants seek to

exclude Plaintiff’s psychiatric records from Mount Olivet Counseling
Service, subject to a proper foundation being established pursuant to Rule
104 and subject to satisfying the evidentiary parameters of Article 4. The
Court reserves the right to revisit the issue prior to or at trial.
d.

Defendants Boulduan, Lewis, and St. Paul’s motion to prohibit

Plaintiff, his counsel, and any witness from presenting testimony, documentary
evidence, or argument regarding race, ethnicity, and/or racial discrimination is
DENIED AS MOOT as Plaintiff has indicated that he does not intend to present
such testimony, evidence, or argument.
e.

Defendants Boulduan, Lewis, and St. Paul’s motion to prohibit

Plaintiff, his counsel, and any witness from presenting testimony, documentary
evidence, or argument regarding the City of Saint Paul’s indemnification of the

5

Defendant Officers is DENIED AS MOOT as Plaintiff has indicated that he does
not intend to present such testimony, evidence, or argument.
f.

Defendants Boulduan, Lewis, and St. Paul’s motion to exclude any

and all previously undisclosed documentary evidence is GRANTED.
g.

Defendants Boulduan, Lewis, and St. Paul’s motion to exclude any

references to Defendants’ separate legal representation is GRANTED, absent
further ruling by the Court.
4.

The Court receives Defendants’ Joint Exhibits and addresses

Plaintiff’s objections as follows:
Exhibit No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

5.

Ruling
Sustained pursuant to Rule 801
Sustained pursuant to Rule 801 and Rule 403
Sustained pursuant to Rule 801 and Rule 403
Sustained pursuant to Rule 801 and Rule 403
Sustained pursuant to Rule 801 and Rule 403
Sustained pursuant to Rule 801 and Rule 403
Sustained pursuant to Rule 401, Rule 403, and Rule 404
Sustained pursuant to Rule 401, Rule 403, and Rule 404
Sustained pursuant to Rule 401, Rule 403, and Rule 404
No objection
No objection
No objection
Sustained pursuant to Rule 401 and Rule 403
Sustained pursuant to Rule 403 and Rule 703
No objection
No objection
Overruled; exhibit excluded
No objection

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s psychiatric records provided to the

Court at the pretrial hearing on October 8, 2014. The records are deemed presumptively
admissible to the extent they reflect the Court’s redactions in Attachment 1 to this Order,
6

which has been sent to the parties via e-mail. Any documents not attached hereto are
excluded as inadmissible pursuant to the Court’s Article 4 and Article 8 analysis.
6.

Plaintiff and Defendants shall each be allotted 20 minutes for voir dire.

7.

Plaintiff and Defendants shall each be allotted 30 minutes for opening

statements.

Dated: October 9, 2014

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

7