Waymire v. Miami County Sheriff's Office
DECISION AND ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CANINES FROM THE COURTROOM (DOC. 67 ) granting 67 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 10/6/17. (pb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Case No. 3:15-cv-159
MIAMI COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
DECISION AND ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
EXCLUDE CANINES FROM THE COURTROOM (DOC. 67)
This civil case is before the Court on Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude police
canines from the courtroom. Doc. 67. Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition. Doc. 71.
Defendant filed a reply. Doc. 74. The Court has carefully considered all of the foregoing, and
Defendant’s motion in limine is ripe for decision.
Defendant seeks an Order preventing Plaintiff from having a police canine present as a
demonstrative during the testimony of witnesses at trial. Doc. 67 at 1838-39. Plaintiff seeks to
use a police canine as a demonstrative to prove that they are highly trained animals requiring
detailed care beyond that required of a traditional pet dog. However, Plaintiff does not specify
how she intends to demonstrate such with the mere presence of the police canine in the
courtroom, and many of the off-duty tasks required of officers in caring for police dogs -- as
outlined in the briefing on summary judgment1 -- are not amenable to demonstration within the
confines of the courtroom. Instead, the specific testimony from officers detailing such tasks
will likely be much more probative of the issues Plaintiff seeks to prove.
Plaintiff stated that particular off-duty tasks “included work consisting of feeding, watering,
waiting to avoid stomach torsion, breaking, grooming, training, exercising, bathing, attending veterinary
visits, and general care.” See doc. 36 at PageID 836-37.
Thus, although Plaintiff’s proposed use of a police canine as a demonstrative may be
relevant, the undersigned concludes that the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion the issues,
undue delay, and the needless presentation of cumulative evidence substantially outweighs the
probative value of that evidence.
See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Accordingly, the undersigned
GRANTS Defendant’s motion in limine (doc. 67) at this time, but is open to reconsideration at
trial based upon the presentation of evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 6, 2017
s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?