McBryde v. Thomas et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting 51 Motion in Limine; denying 72 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Keith Strong on 12/31/2013. Mailed to McBryde. (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
CAMERON MCBRYDE,

CV 12-00076-H-DLC-RKS

Plaintiff,
vs.
CRAIG THOMAS, FERN OSLER, JULIE
THOMAS, MEAGHAN SHONE, TIM
KRUMB, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, MONTANA BOARD OF
PARDONS AND PAROLE, NEXUS
TREATMENT CENTER, COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS AND COUNSELING
SERVICES, HOWARD LAMELY,
DERRICK GIBBS, and JOHN DOES,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION IN
LIMINE AND DENYING MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS

Defendants.
Pending are the Nexus Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 51) and Plaintiff
Cameron McBryde’s Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. 72.) The Court first notes that
neither motion contains the requisite language from Local Rule 7.1 which requires
as a precondition of filing that “[t]he text of the motion must state that other parties
have been contacted and state whether any party objects to the motion.” L.R.
7.1(c)(1). While this is a sufficient basis upon which to deny both motions, the
Court will address the merits of the motions. However, further motions that do not
comply with Local Rule 7.1 must be denied.
1

The Nexus Defendants have moved to preclude the mention or reference to
insurance or settlement negotiations at trial pursuant to Rules 401, 402, 403, and
411 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Doc. 51, 52.) Mr. McBryde’s only
response to the motion is Defendants have already made reference to settlement
negotiations in their response to his request for mediation. (Doc. 73.) Defendants
are only seeking to preclude the mention of insurance and settlement at trial. At
this time, there is no apparent reason why such information would be relevant to
the issues at trial. The motion will be granted.
Mr. McBryde seeks sanctions against Assistant Attorney General Rob Stutz
for attaching an irrelevant exhibit to the State Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 72.) Defendants admit that the exhibit is irrelevant and have
withdrawn the exhibit but argue sanctions are inappropriate as Mr. McBryde failed
to comply with the “safe harbor” provision of Rule 11. Rule 11(c)(2) provides:
A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other
motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates
Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not
be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim,
defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected
within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.
Given that Defendants have agreed to withdraw the exhibit, it is clear that the
motion would have been unnecessary had Mr. McBryde complied with this rule.

2

The motion will be denied.
It is ORDERED:
1. The Nexus Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 51) is granted.
2. Mr. McBryde’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 72) is denied.
3. At all times during the pendency of this action, Mr. McBryde shall
immediately advise the Court and opposing counsel of any change of address and
its effective date. Failure to file a notice of change of address may result in the
dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
DATED this 31st day of December, 2013.

/s/ Keith Strong
Keith Strong
United States Magistrate Judge

3