Chepilko v. The City of New York et al

Filing 146

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 125 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 128 Motion in Limine. Pending before the Court are in limine motions filed by the parties. (See Defs.' 1/24/24 Not. of Mot., ECF No. 125; Pl.'s 1/24/24 Not. of Mot., ECF No. 128.) These motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows: (As further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 2/6/2024) (va)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2/6/2024

Sergei Chepilko,
Plaintiff,
-against-

1:18-cv-02195 (SDA)
ORDER

The City of New York et al.,
Defendants.
STEWART D. AARON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Pending before the Court are in limine motions filed by the parties. (See Defs.’ 1/24/24
Not. of Mot., ECF No. 125; Pl.’s 1/24/24 Not. of Mot., ECF No. 128.) These motions are GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1. Defendants object to various exhibits listed by Plaintiff in the Joint Pre-Trial Order.
(See Defs.’ 1/24/24 Mem., ECF No. 127, at 3-9.) The Court already has addressed
Defendants’ objections in its Order dated January 30, 2024, sustaining certain
objections, overruling certain objections and providing for admission of certain
exhibits for a limited purpose. (See 1/30/24 Order, ECF No. 140, ¶ 2.)
2. Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence and making
arguments regarding claims that have been dismissed. (See Defs.’ 1/24/24 Mem. at
10-11.) In response, Plaintiff states that he “does not seek to offer evidence in support
of the dismissed claims.” (See Pl.’s 1/31/24 Resp., ECF No. 142, at PDF p. 4.) Thus, this
aspect of Defendants’ motion is denied as moot.
3. Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from eliciting evidence of any NYPD member’s
disciplinary history or prior lawsuits against them. (See Defs.’ 1/24/24 Mem. at 11-14.)

In response, Plaintiff states that he “does not seek to elicit such testimony.” (See Pl.’s
1/31/24 Resp. at PDF p. 5.) Thus, this aspect of Defendants’ motion is denied as moot.
4. Defendants request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force and
First Amendment retaliation. (See Defs.’ 1/24/24 Mem. at 14-17.) This request is
tantamount to a second summary judgment motion and, although the Court could
consider such a motion, doing so would require additional submissions from the
parties to ensure compliance with the “crucial procedural safeguards” that
accompany motions for summary judgment. See Pavone v. Puglisi, No. 08-CV-02389
(MEA), 2013 WL 245745, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2013). The Court finds that converting
Defendants’ motion to a motion for summary judgment is not “the most efficient or
effective way to resolve [this] particular issue” at this late stage of the proceedings.
See id. Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, declines to consider Defendants’
request. See id.; see also Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp. v. Dick Corp., 219 F.R.D.
552 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (declining to use court’s discretion to consider successive
summary judgment motion). The Court will address the merits of Plaintiff’s claims
after trial. Thus, this aspect of Defendants’ motion is denied.
5. Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from seeking punitive damages. (See Defs.’
1/24/24 Mem. at 18-22.) This aspect of Defendants’ motion is denied as premature.
The Court will address punitive damages in conjunction with Defendants’ anticipated
Rule 50 motion, or at the conclusion of trial, as the Court deems appropriate. 1 See

1

If, as Defendants indicate in their reply memorandum (Defs.’ Reply Mem., ECF No. 144), they later make
a motion pursuant to Rule 50, they may rely on their prior briefing if they so choose. (See id. at 4.)

2

Thomas v. West, No. 14-CV-04459 (LTS), 2019 WL 1206696, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14,
2019) (denying motion in limine to preclude evidence of punitive damages and noting
that such issue could be raised by Rule 50 motion following trial).
6. Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from offering documentary or testimonial
evidence relating to claims for emotional distress beyond “garden variety” damages.
(See Defs.’ 1/24/24 Mem. at 22-23.) In response, Plaintiff states that he does not
object to this limitation. Thus, this aspect of Defendants’ motion is granted.
7. Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from referring to or eliciting testimony regarding
unrelated instances of alleged police misconduct, class actions and criminal
investigations. (See Defs.’ 1/24/24 Mem. at 23-24.) In response, Plaintiff states that
he does not intend to do so. (See Pl.’s 1/31/24 Resp. at PDF p. 9.) Thus, this aspect of
Defendants’ motion is denied as moot.
8. Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from testifying or offering evidence regarding
Plaintiff’s own prior lawsuits against the City of New York and NYPD members and
prior unrelated disciplinary allegations made by Plaintiff against other NYPD officers.
(See Defs.’ 1/24/24 Mem. at 25.) In response, Plaintiff states that he does not intend
to do so. (See Pl.’s 1/31/24 Resp. at PDF p. 9.) Thus, this aspect of Defendants’ motion
is denied as moot.
9. Plaintiff seeks to preclude Defendants from introducing evidence of Plaintiff’s other
lawsuits. (See Pl.’s 1/24/24 Mem., ECF No. 129, at 3-5.) Given that Defendants
themselves moved to preclude Plaintiff “from testifying or offering evidence related

3

to . . . his own prior lawsuits against the City of New York and other NYPD members”
(see Defs.’ 1/24/24 Mem. at 25), Plaintiff’s motion is granted.
Notwithstanding the foregoing rulings, if a party himself testifies regarding any of the
matters as to which he successfully sought preclusion, the adverse party may ask questions of
such party regarding such matters.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
February 6, 2024
______________________________
STEWART D. AARON
United States Magistrate Judge

4