Diggs v. Wood et al

Filing 152

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE: ( 122 , 140 and 150 ) ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff Ronald Diggs's Motions in limine are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2. Defendants' Motions in limine are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 3. Pl aintiff Ronald Diggs may inquire on cross-examination as to prior allegations of excessive force against defendant Ronald Woods; 4. Defendants may inquire as to the nature of plaintiff Ronald Diggs' conviction on cross-examination; 5. Defe ndants may not inquire as to plaintiff Ronald Diggs' prison disciplinary history; 6. Plaintiff Ronald Diggs may offer evidence of his surgery at State University of New York Upstate Hospital in 2018 if he can lay a proper foundation for tha t evidence to come in; 7. Plaintiff Ronald Diggs may not address the possibility that the State of New York may indemnify defendants in the event of a verdict; and 8. Plaintiff Ronald Diggs may not discuss facts or allegations relating to claims that do not remain active. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on June 23, 2021. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------RONALD DIGGS,
-v-

Plaintiff,

9:16-CV-554

SERGEANT RONALD G. WOOD,
CHRIS DUBREY, and T. ROBARE,
Defendants.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

SCHENECTADY COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
519 State Street
Schenectady, New York 12305

JULIA VIRGINIA KOSINESKI,
ESQ.

HON. LETITIA JAMES
Attorney General for the State of
New York
Attorneys for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

ERIK BOULE PINSONNAULT,
ESQ.
KONSTANDINOS D. LERIS, ESQ.
DENISE P. BUCKLEY, ESQ.

DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
A jury trial is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. in
Utica, New York. Plaintiff Ronald Diggs (“Lee” or “plaintiff”) has moved in
limine for three pretrial rulings on the admissibility of certain evidence.

Defendants Ronald G. Wood (“Wood”), Craig DuBrey, and Timothy Robare
(collectively “defendants”) have moved for five.
The standard governing a motion in limine was explored in detail in this
Court’s recent opinion in Walker v. Schult, 365 F. Supp. 3d 266, 274-75
(N.D.N.Y. 2019). The Court need not repeat that standard now. But in brief,
“[e]vidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence
is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Id. Accordingly, “[t]he trial
judge may reserve judgment on a motion in limine until trial to ensure the
motion is considered in the proper factual context.” Id.
First, Diggs asks be permitted to inquire into prior accusations of
excessive force against Wood. Plaintiff’s request to introduce it must be
granted, subject to a limiting instruction. Plaintiff may inquire into prior
instances of excessive force allegations against Wood on cross-examination
for the sole purpose of bringing to the jury’s attention a motive on Wood’s
part to lie to protect himself against lawsuits and discipline. This line of
questioning is more probative than prejudicial because the parties’ narratives
diverge so wildly. On the one hand, defendants disavow that anything
happened to Diggs at all while on the other plaintiff claims he was beaten
without justification. This case will be resolved almost entirely on which
party the jury believes, so the parties’ credibility is of paramount importance.

2

Second, defendants and Diggs disagree as to whether defendants should
be permitted to inquire as to the essential facts of plaintiff’s conviction on
cross-examination. Plaintiff’s motion to preclude must be denied, and
defendants’ motion to inquire must be granted in part. Plaintiff’s credibility
is just as important in this case as is defendants’, so defendants may inquire
as to the nature of plaintiff’s conviction on cross-examination. But they may
not delve into the details of that conviction.
Third, defendants have moved to inquire as to Diggs’s disciplinary history
while incarcerated. Plaintiff has moved to preclude the same line of
questioning. Plaintiff’s motion must be granted, defendants’ denied.
Fourth, defendants have moved to preclude Diggs from introducing
medical records from his surgery at State University of New York Upstate
Hospital in Syracuse in 2018. Defendants’ motion must be denied. That said,
plaintiff must lay a proper foundation to introduce this evidence, and if he
fails to do so it will not be admitted.
Fifth, defendants have moved to preclude Diggs from making reference to
the possibility that the State of New York will indemnify defendants in the
event of a verdict against them. That motion must be granted.
Sixth and finally, defendants have moved to preclude Diggs’ offering
evidence or alluding to facts related to plaintiff’s claims that have
subsequently been dismissed. That motion must also be granted.
3

Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Ronald Diggs’s Motions in limine are GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part;
2. Defendants’ Motions in limine are GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part;
3. Plaintiff Ronald Diggs may inquire on cross-examination as to prior
allegations of excessive force against defendant Ronald Woods;
4. Defendants may inquire as to the nature of plaintiff Ronald Diggs’
conviction on cross-examination;
5. Defendants may not inquire as to plaintiff Ronald Diggs’ prison
disciplinary history;
6. Plaintiff Ronald Diggs may offer evidence of his surgery at State
University of New York Upstate Hospital in 2018 if he can lay a proper
foundation for that evidence to come in;
7. Plaintiff Ronald Diggs may not address the possibility that the State of
New York may indemnify defendants in the event of a verdict; and
8. Plaintiff Ronald Diggs may not discuss facts or allegations relating to
claims that do not remain active.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: June 23, 2021
Utica, New York.

5