Krekelberg v. Anoka County et al

Filing 899

CLARIFICATION ORDER REGARDING DOC. NO. 893 and setting a Status Conference for 6/9/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7C (STP) before Judge Donovan W. Frank. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/7/2022.(las)

CASE 0:13-cv-03562-DWF-TNL Doc. 899 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 3

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

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

v.
City of Minneapolis, et al.,

CLARIFICATION ORDER
REGARDING DOC. NO. 893

Defendants.
On June 3, 2022, the Court issued a Pretrial Order. (Doc. No. 893.) On June 6,
2022, counsel for Defendants filed a letter seeking clarification on one of the Court’s
rulings on the parties’ motions in limine. (Doc. No. 897.) Regrettably, before receiving
clarification on that issue, counsel for Defendants sought an Emergency Petition for Writ
of Mandamus on that, and two additional, rulings in the Pretrial Order. Because in the
Court’s view, the parties have misunderstood or misinterpreted at least a portion of the
Court’s order, the Court offers this clarification in an attempt to resolve any questions
regarding the scope of the Court’s rulings. The Court also sets a status conference at
9:00 a.m., on Thursday, June 9, 2022, in Courtroom 7C, St. Paul Courthouse before the
undersigned.
First, with respect to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 (Doc. No. 840), the
Court clarifies that unless there is an access that relates specifically to Olson or Young,
all other accesses are inadmissible at the time of or prior to those specific accesses (of
Olson or Young).

CASE 0:13-cv-03562-DWF-TNL Doc. 899 Filed 06/07/22 Page 2 of 3

Second, as to the remaining question regarding the 48-hour accesses associated
with Olson, absent agreement of the parties, the Court will address that issue at the status
conference.
Third, as to evidence on the Code of Silence, unless there is specific testimony by
Quinn pointing to evidence that Olson and Young received specific training at the time of
or prior to their accesses vis-a-vis training that all officers are alleged to have received
during that time period, the testimony is presumptively inadmissible.
Fourth, with respect to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 (Doc. No. 845), the
Court granted the motion consistent with the opinion of the Eighth Circuit. As with the
evidence on the Code of Silence, this evidence is presumptively inadmissible unless there
is specific evidence establishing that Young and Olson were each specifically trained.
Such evidence could be relevant to punitive damages because it could relate to the state
of mind of Young or Olson at the time of or prior to the accesses.
Fifth, with respect to the Court’s ruling on evidence of the Internal Affairs
Investigation, any evidence is presumptively inadmissible unless there is any evidence
that would establish specifically that Young or Olson were investigated for accesses at
the time of or prior to the accesses at issue.
Sixth, with respect to the Court’s ruling on the Legislative Auditor’s Report, the
Court clarifies that this evidence is presumptively inadmissible unless Plaintiff presents
specific evidence that Young or Olson received the training. It is not enough to show that
they were officers at the time of the training. Instead, there must be a specific showing
that they received the training.
2

CASE 0:13-cv-03562-DWF-TNL Doc. 899 Filed 06/07/22 Page 3 of 3

Finally, the Court continues to believe that the best interests of the parties would
be served by a bench trial on this matter, noting that the Court would be obligated to
make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in addition to addressing the issue
of attorney fees.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2022

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

3