Krekelberg v. Anoka County et al

Filing 893

ORDER - granting 804 Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence Regarding theCurrent DVS System and Changes to the DVS System After August 23, 2012; granting 806 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs Interactionswith Counsel; granti ng 808 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs Sexual Conduct; granting 810 Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence of Plaintiffs Financial Information, Salary, Benefits, and Property Value; granting 813 Motion in Limine to Excl ude Evidence of Social Media, Internet, and Public Records; granting in part and denying in part 816 Motion in Limine To Exclude Testimony of Michael Quinn; granting 819 Motion in Limine To Exclude Reference to Other DPPA Litigation; denying [ 821] Motion in Limine Vicarious Liability; denying 825 Motion in Limine Plaintiff is Limited to Garden Variety Emotional Distress Damages; granting 828 Motion in Limine Exclusion of Evidence of Liquidated Damages; granting in part and denying in part 830 Motion in Limine Exclusion of Legislative Auditor's Report; denying as MOOT 832 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Liability based upon stipulation at 890 ; granting in part and denying in part 840 Motion in Limine t o Exclude Testimony and Evidence of Untimely or Unrelated Accesses; granting in part and denying in part 842 Motion in Limine to Exclude DVS Business Partner Agreements and DVS Policies; granting 845 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Te stimony Relating to Harassment, Retaliation, Failure to Investigate & Other "Bad Acts" ; granting in part and denying in part 848 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Internal Affairs Investigations; denying 850 Motion in Limine to Exclude Punitive DamagesInstruction & Special Verdict Questions; granting 852 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony of Damages Not a Direct Result of Defendants' 74 Accesses; The Court approves the parties stipulation filed at Doc. No. 890 .(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/3/2022. (las)

CASE 0:13-cv-03562-DWF-TNL Doc. 893 Filed 06/03/22 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Amy E. Krekelberg,

Civil No. 13-3562 (DWF/TNL)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

City of Minneapolis, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter came before the Court for a pretrial hearing on June 1, 2022. At the
pretrial hearing, the Court heard, among other things, the parties’ respective motions
in limine. Based upon the memoranda, pleadings, and arguments of counsel, and for the
reasons explained during the hearing, the Court hereby enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence Regarding the

Current DVS System and Changes to the DVS System After August 23, 2012 (Doc.
No. [804]) is GRANTED. Any reference to the changes in the system after August 23,
2012, shall be presumptively inadmissible under Rule 403. The Court, however, will
entertain a motion to introduce such evidence should it become appropriate based on
testimony received at trial.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Interactions

with Counsel (Doc. No. [806]) is GRANTED as to the content of any conversations

CASE 0:13-cv-03562-DWF-TNL Doc. 893 Filed 06/03/22 Page 2 of 8

between Plaintiff and her counsel. However, the Court may allow inquiry into the fact of
contact and the timing of such contact, depending on the testimony received at trial.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Sexual

Conduct (Doc. No. [808]) is GRANTED. This evidence is presumptively inadmissible
unless and until the relevance of such evidence is made clear to the Court. The Court will
entertain a motion to introduce such evidence, should it become appropriate based on
testimony received at trial.
4.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence of Plaintiff’s

Financial Information, Salary, Benefits, and Property Value (Doc. No. [810]) is
GRANTED. The Court concludes that this evidence is presumptively inadmissible on
Rule 403 grounds. Any probative value related to damages is substantially outweighed
by unfair prejudice to Plaintiff and the potential to confuse the jury. Should the door be
opened at trial, the Court will entertain the admission of such evidence at that time.
5.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Social Media, Internet,

and Public Records (Doc. No. [813]) is GRANTED. The Court concludes that this
evidence is presumptively inadmissible on Rule 403 grounds. Any probative value
related to damages is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to Plaintiff and the
potential to confuse the jury. Should the door be opened at trial, the Court will entertain
the admission of such evidence at that time.
Consistent with the Court’s comments from the bench at the pretrial hearing,
Exhibit 236 shall be admissible with the caveat that there shall be no reference to a prior
hearing or trial.
2

CASE 0:13-cv-03562-DWF-TNL Doc. 893 Filed 06/03/22 Page 3 of 8

6.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1: To Exclude Testimony of Michael

Quinn (Doc. No. [816]) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

The motion is DENIED as follows:
i.

On the record before the Court, and assuming proper

foundation is laid, subject to objections during the trial, the testimony of
Michael Quinn as to when law enforcement officers of the Minneapolis
Police Department reasonably knew that accessing the DVS database for
non-law enforcement purposes violated federal law shall be presumptively
admissible to the limited extent that such evidence relates to one of the 74
impermissible accesses. Such evidence is relevant to the issue of punitive
damages.
ii.

On the record before the Court, and assuming proper

foundation is laid, subject to objections during the trial, the testimony of
Michael Quinn on the impact on the police culture of the so-called Code of
Silence and the organizational structure and practices of law enforcement
agencies, including the Minneapolis Police Department, shall be
presumptively admissible to the limited extent that such evidence relates to
the state of mind of an officer accessing Plaintiff’s information at the time
of one of the 74 impermissible accesses. However, any other testimony on
a Code of Silence that relates to accesses beyond this limited purview will
be presumptively inadmissible.

3

CASE 0:13-cv-03562-DWF-TNL Doc. 893 Filed 06/03/22 Page 4 of 8

b.

Except for the limited areas of testimony discussed above, the

motion is GRANTED.
This decision of the Court is made pursuant to Articles 4 and 7 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence.
7.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Testimony and Evidence of

Untimely or Unrelated Accesses (Doc. No. [840]) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as follows: To the extent that the testimony and evidence relates to
the state of mind of an officer accessing Plaintiff’s information at the time of one of the
74 impermissible accesses, it is presumptively admissible. However, to the extent that
such testimony or evidence relates to accesses beyond this limited purview, it will be
presumptively inadmissible.
8.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3: To Exclude Reference to Other

DPPA Litigation (Doc. No. [819]) is GRANTED. The Court concludes that this
evidence shall be presumptively inadmissible pursuant to the Court’s Article 4 analysis,
including Rule 403. The Court reserves the right to revisit and address this issue outside
the presence of the jury, if either party “opens the door.”
9.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude DVS Business Partner

Agreements and DVS Policies (Doc. No. [842]) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART as follows:
a.

The motion is DENIED to the limited extent that such evidence

relates to punitive damages and, in particular, the state of mind and knowledge of
Young and Olson at the time of or prior to the accesses of Plaintiff’s information.
4

CASE 0:13-cv-03562-DWF-TNL Doc. 893 Filed 06/03/22 Page 5 of 8

b.

Except for the limited areas of testimony discussed above, this

evidence shall be presumptively inadmissible as it does not survive the Court’s
Article 4 analysis.
10.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5: Vicarious Liability (Doc. No. [821])

is DENIED. Consistent with the Court’s remarks during the pretrial and the Court’s
prior ruling, the Court concludes that vicarious liability has been established as a matter
of law. Further, the Court maintains that the statute-of-limitations dismissals of certain
claims do not preclude Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims, consistent with its previous
ruling in the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 21, 2018 (Doc. No. 527 at 10).
11.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6: Plaintiff is Limited to Garden

Variety Emotional Distress Damages (Doc. No. [825]) is DENIED to the extent that,
consistent with the Court’s prior ruling, Plaintiff will be permitted to testify as to the
feelings she is experiencing describing her mental and emotional state even if they would
be deemed significant and severe such as depression, chronic fatigue, irritability,
insomnia, tiredness, crying, just to name a few examples. Such testimony shall be
presumptively admissible subject to any objections made during the trial. The Court
concludes that the testimony survives the Court’s analysis pursuant to Article 4 and
Rule 701.
12.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 (Doc. No. [845]) to Exclude Evidence

and Testimony Relating to Harassment, Retaliation, Failure to Investigate & Other “Bad
Acts” is GRANTED given the opinion of the Eighth Circuit. However, the Court
reserves the right to revisit this issue at trial outside the presence of the jury, if raised on a
5

CASE 0:13-cv-03562-DWF-TNL Doc. 893 Filed 06/03/22 Page 6 of 8

Rule 104 offer of proof in consideration of testimony and evidence at trial, and to the
extent that any such evidence relates to punitive damages and, in particular, the state of
mind and knowledge of Young and Olson at the time of or prior to the accesses of
Plaintiff’s information.
13.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8: Exclusion of Evidence of Liquidated

Damages (Doc. No. [828]) is GRANTED for the reasons stated during the Pretrial
Hearing and the prior trial. While this information will not be provided to the jury, the
Court notes that liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500 per violation is appropriate
in this case. In addition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court will view
sequential accesses occurring close in time (i.e., within a several-minute time span) as
one obtainment or violation, consistent with its previous ruling in the Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated June 21, 2018 (Doc. No. 527 at 15 n.4.) In light of the Court’s
ruling, there shall be no mention of the statute of limitations or the settlement of any
other DPPA case.
14.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 9: Exclusion of Legislative Auditor’s

Report (Doc. No. [830]), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

The motion is DENIED to the limited extent that the Report

relates to the state of mind and knowledge of Young and Olson at the time
of, or prior to, the accesses of Plaintiff’s information as relevant to the issue
of punitive damages.
b.

Except for the limited area of testimony discussed above, the

motion is GRANTED.
6

CASE 0:13-cv-03562-DWF-TNL Doc. 893 Filed 06/03/22 Page 7 of 8

15.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 10 to Exclude Evidence of Internal

Affairs Investigations (Doc. No. [848]) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART as follows:
a.

The motion is GRANTED to the extent that evidence of

accesses and proceedings connected to accesses of information belonging to
parties other than Plaintiff is presumptively inadmissible.
b.

The motion is DENIED to the extent that evidence of

accesses and proceedings connected to accesses made by either Young or
Olson of Plaintiff’s information is presumptively admissible. On the record
before the Court and assuming proper foundation is laid subject to
objections during the trial, such evidence goes to the issue of punitive
damages. This decision of the Court survives the Court’s Article 4
analysis.
16.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 11 to Exclude Evidence of Liability

(Doc. No. [832]) is MOOT based on the parties’ stipulation at Doc. No. 890.
17.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 12 to Exclude Punitive Damages

Instruction & Special Verdict Questions (Doc. No. [850]) is DENIED.
18.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 13 to Exclude Evidence and Testimony

of Damages Not a Direct Result of Defendants’ 74 Accesses (Doc. No. [852]) is
GRANTED.

7

CASE 0:13-cv-03562-DWF-TNL Doc. 893 Filed 06/03/22 Page 8 of 8

19.

The Court approves the parties’ stipulation filed at Doc. No. [890].

Dated: June 3, 2022

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

8