Brock v. Harrison

Filing 47

ORDER denying 37 Motion to Strike ; denying 43 Motion in Limine; denying 26 Motion in Limine; denying 31 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 11/17/15. (kn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RANON OLAN BROCK,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:14-cv-0323
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp

v.
RICHARD HARRISON,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the following motions and
corresponding filings: (1) Defendant’s first motion in limine to exclude certain evidence
regarding the pursuit of Plaintiff (ECF No. 26), Plaintiff’s response in opposition and, in the
alternative, motion in limine for segmentation of the evidence (ECF No. 31), Defendant’s reply
in support of his motion in limine (ECF No. 35), and Plaintiff’s reply memorandum in support of
his motion for segmentation (ECF No. 36); (2) Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s reply
memorandum (ECF No. 37), Plaintiff’s response in opposition (ECF No. 38), and Defendant’s
reply memorandum in support of his motion to strike (ECF No. 41); and (3) Defendant’s second
motion in limine to exclude evidence or reference to alleged policy violations (ECF No. 43), and
Plaintiff’s response in opposition (ECF No. 46). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES
the motions.
I.

BACKGROUND

This case involves a vehicle chase that ended with Plaintiff being shot in the arm.
According to the Complaint, on February 18, 2013, Plaintiff stopped his vehicle partially on the
1

roadway. Defendant Richard Harrison (a law enforcement officer with the Gallia County, Ohio
Sheriff’s Office) initiated a traffic stop of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff pulled away from the
traffic stop and a vehicle chase ensued. Ultimately, Defendant was able to stop Plaintiff’s
vehicle and prevent it from moving. Defendant exited his vehicle and shot Plaintiff through the
driver’s side window. Plaintiff sustained a gunshot wound to his arm.
Plaintiff subsequently brought a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant’s conduct constitutes excessive force in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights. A jury trial is scheduled to begin on January 4, 2016.
Defendant now moves to exclude certain evidence from trial. Specifically, Defendant
argues that Plaintiff intends to present evidence suggesting that Defendant violated Gallia
County policies during the vehicle pursuit. Defendant argues that such evidence is irrelevant to
the question of whether Defendant used reasonable force when he shot Plaintiff in the arm.
Plaintiff responds by arguing that the facts underlying the vehicle chase are part of the
totality of the circumstances that the jury may consider in determining whether Defendant used
reasonable force. Plaintiff characterizes Defendant’s conduct during the chase as “overaggressive and dangerous,” (ECF No. 31, at PAGEID # 160), and argues that such conduct is
relevant to the issue of whether the force Defendant ultimately employed was reasonable. In the
alternative, Plaintiff argues that the evidence should be segmented such that “neither party may
put on evidence about the pursuit.” (Id.)
Defendant filed a reply memorandum in support of his motion in limine. Plaintiff
subsequently filed a reply memorandum in support of his motion to segregate evidence.
Defendant then filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s reply memorandum, arguing that the same
2

improperly raises new arguments and new factual allegations. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and
Defendant filed a reply memorandum in support of the motion.
Around this same time, Plaintiff learned that Defendant had been placed on
administrative leave from his job as of August 27, 2015 “pending the outcome of an
investigation.” (ECF No. 39-1, at PAGEID # 396.) Plaintiff moved to reopen discovery on this
limited issue. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request. Defendant then filed a second motion in
limine to preclude Plaintiff from introducing any evidence of “departmental violations [that] may
have occurred after the pursuit and shooting incident.” (ECF No. 43, at PAGEID # 432.)
The Court will consider the parties’ arguments below.
II.

ANALYSIS

The Court has previously set forth the standard that governs motions in limine:
Motions in limine are generally used to ensure evenhanded and expeditious
management of trials by eliminating evidence that is clearly inadmissible for any
purpose. See Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440
(7th Cir.1997). The court has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when
evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. Cf. Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4, 105 S. Ct. 460, 463 n. 4, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984)
(federal district courts have authority to make in limine rulings pursuant to their
authority to manage trials). Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary
rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy
and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context. (citations omitted).
Denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence
contemplated by the motion will be admitted at trial. Denial merely means that
without the context of trial, the court is unable to determine whether the evidence
in question should be excluded. The court will entertain objections on individual
proffers as they arise at trial, even though the proffer falls within the scope of a
denied motion in limine. See United States v. Connelly, 874 F.2d 412, 416 (7th
Cir.1989) (citing Luce, 469 U.S. at 41, 105 S.Ct. at 463) (“Indeed, even if nothing
unexpected happens at trial, the district judge is free, in the exercise of sound
judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling.”); Hawthorne Partners v.
AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400–01 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
3

Hinkle v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 2:05-cv-574, 2007 WL 496365 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2007)
(quoting Indiana Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846–47 (N.D. Ohio 2004)).
That standard must be viewed in context with the standard governing excessive force
claims under § 1983. The parties agree that the jury must be able to examine “the totality of the
circumstances” in order to determine whether a law enforcement officer’s use of force was
objectively reasonable. See, e.g., Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396–97 (1989). Where, as
here, an officer employs a firearm, the circumstances leading up to the shooting are relevant (and
oftentimes vital) in determining whether the use of a firearm was justified. See, e.g., Pollard v.
City of Columbus, 780 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that an officer’s use of force following
a vehicle pursuit was reasonable and basing that holding, at least in part, on the suspect’s conduct
during the pursuit).
Here, Plaintiff’s motion for segmentation of the evidence asks the Court to prevent both
parties from presenting evidence of the events leading up to a shooting. That request, if granted,
would cause the jury to view the shooting entirely out of context and with no way to determine
whether Defendant’s conduct was reasonable. The Court accordingly denies that request.
The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion in limine for segmentation of the
evidence. (ECF No. 31.) The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to strike
Plaintiff’s reply memorandum in support of his motion for segmentation. (ECF No. 37.) The
latter motion is moot for the additional reason that, pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order in
Civil Jury Trials, the Court only accepts motions in limine and responses to the same. See In re:
Standing Order on Trial Procedures for Civil Jury Trials, at 6 (May 20, 2014). The Standing

4

Order does not contemplate reply memorandums. See id.1 For this additional reason, the Court
declines to consider Plaintiff’s reply memorandum in support of his motion for segmentation.
(ECF No. 36.) The Court similarly declines to consider Defendant’s reply memorandum in
support of its motion in limine. (ECF No. 35.)
Defendant’s first motion in limine to exclude evidence of policy violations presents a
closer call. Although the Court agrees with Defendant that, in theory, a violation of internal
policies does not establish a constitutional violation, the facts surrounding the vehicle chase in
this case (including Defendant’s actions that may or may not have violated Gallia County
policies) are too intertwined with the subsequent use of force for the Court to conclude that they
are inadmissible for any purpose. It simply is premature at this stage to conclude that Plaintiff
cannot present evidence of a policy violation without any context as to how Plaintiff intends to
present that evidence or how that evidence ties into the circumstances leading up to the shooting.
The authority Defendant cites in his motion does not alter this conclusion. The fact that
courts have declined to find constitutional violations in cases in which a defendant violated
internal policies does not make such evidence inadmissible for any purpose in this case.
Defendant’s second motion in limine fails for a similar reason. This motion asks the
Court to exclude evidence of policy violations that occurred after February 18, 2013, despite the
fact that the Court has no information before it regarding what these violations are. The Court
agrees with Plaintiff that, although the question of excessive force is objective, Defendant’s
1

In the Notice of Final Pretrial and Trial dated July 24, 2014, the parties and their counsel were informed
that the “rules and trial procedures of Judge Gregory L. Frost should be downloaded from the Court’s website at
www.ohsd.uscourts.gov.” (ECF No. 12, at PAGEID # 36.) Those procedures, available at
http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/FPFrost, clearly set forth the Court’s procedure for motions in limine. The parties and
their counsel are encouraged to read the remainder of the Court’s rules and trial procedures for civil jury trials.

5

credibility regarding the facts as they existed at the time of the shooting is very much at issue in
this case. Without knowing more information about the policy violations Defendant seeks to
exclude, the Court cannot conclude that such violations are irrelevant to Defendant’s credibility
(or other issues) such that they are inadmissible for any purpose. Defendant’s request is best
resolved in context at trial.
For these reasons, the Court defers ruling on the evidentiary issue of whether policy
violations are admissible at trial until it can view those violations in context with Plaintiff’s
evidence. The Court accordingly DENIES Defendant’s motions in limine.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s first motion in limine (ECF
No. 26), Plaintiff’s motion in limine (ECF No. 31), Defendant’s motion to strike reply (ECF No.
37), and Defendant’s second motion in limine (ECF No. 43).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6