King v. Tulsa County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 108

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John E Dowdell ; granting in part and denying in part 76 Motion in Limine (Re: 96 Opinion and Order,, Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment, 97 Opinion and Order,, Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment ) (SAS, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DONALD FRANCIS KING,
Plaintiff,
v.
STANLEY GLANZ, in his Official
Capacity as Sheriff of Tulsa County; and
LAMONT HILL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-CV-137-JED-TLW

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 76).

The Court has

previously summarized the factual background of this case in prior orders. (See Doc. 96, 97).
I.

Considerations Relating to Motions in Limine
Although the Federal Rules do not specifically authorize motions in limine, the courts

have long recognized the potential utility of pre-trial rulings under the district courts’ inherent
powers to manage the course of trial proceedings. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4
(1984). “The purpose of a motion in limine is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to
rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are
definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.” Mendelsohn v.
Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 587 F. Supp. 2d 1201, 1208 (D. Kan. 2008) aff'd, 402 F. App'x 337
(10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). While pretrial limine rulings can save time and
avoid interruptions at trial, a court is almost always better situated during the actual trial to
determine the probative value of evidence. See id. (citation omitted). For that reason, courts are
often reluctant to enter pretrial rulings which broadly exclude evidence, unless it is clear that the
evidence will be inadmissible on all grounds. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., Inc., 831

F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (“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.”).
II.

Analysis
The defendants’ Motion in Limine includes 14 categories of evidence as to which the

defendants seek a pretrial ruling of exclusion. Many of those requests are generic, are not
supported by either reference to specific evidence or to any authorities beyond evidence rules,
and do not warrant pretrial rulings at this time. Those issues are better addressed at trial if and
when they arise. With respect to most of the generalized issues asserted in the Motion in Limine,
plaintiff notes that it is difficult to specifically respond on those issues because the defendants
have not identified what specific evidence, if any, they seek to exclude. Nonetheless, the
plaintiff has represented that he “does not intend to offer evidence of the type alluded to under
sections I, II, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XII & XIV.” (Doc. 84 at 1). Those requests for exclusion
are thus moot, as it appears there is no evidence sought to be introduced in those categories.1
Plaintiff objects to sections III, VI, X, and XIII of the Motion in Limine, and the issues
raised in those Sections are discussed further below.
Unrelated Lawsuits and Prior Complaints against Deputy Hill
In sections III and X of the Motion in Limine, the defendants request a pretrial ruling
excluding references to unrelated events or lawsuits involving the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office
(TCSO), as well as other complaints made against Deputy Hill. Plaintiff responds that he does
not intend to offer evidence that does not relate to the incident at issue in this case, but that other
1

To the extent that a party seeks to admit specific evidence that comes within the
descriptions set forth in those sections, counsel for that party should raise the issue in advance of
that witness’s testimony, outside the presence of the jury, and should be prepared to present
specific legal arguments in support of his position.
2

complaints and incidents may be relevant to plaintiff’s claims for municipal liability based upon
alleged negligent training. However, the Court has granted summary judgment to Sheriff Glanz
on the § 1983 official capacity claims, including the claim for negligent supervision, such that
any evidence bearing solely on those claims is irrelevant to the claims that remain to be tried.
(See Doc. 97). As the parties have not identified in their briefing any particular evidence that
they are contemplating, it is unclear whether any such evidence may have some other proper
purpose. Accordingly, the requests in Sections III and X of the Motion in Limine are granted,
without prejudice. A party shall inform the Court, in advance and out of the presence of the jury,
if he anticipates introducing any evidence of the type generally described in those Sections, and
shall be prepared to present argument and authorities in support of such introduction.
Demands for Documents During Trial
In section VI of the Motion in Limine, the defendants request that the Court preclude
plaintiff from requesting the production of documents from defendants during the course of trial.
Plaintiff responds that he does not intend to resolve any discovery disputes in front of the jury,
but that testimony at trial may give rise to requesting documents. Plaintiff provides an example
of a witness who uses notes while testifying may be subject to the plaintiff requesting to review
the notes during the course of trial. The Court finds this request by defendants to be overbroad.
This request is denied at this time.
Police Training and Policies
In Section XIII of the Motion, defendants ask the Court to preclude plaintiff’s
introduction of evidence regarding TCSO policies, procedures, and training. In his response,
plaintiff indicates that he intends to introduce evidence of TCSO policies in an effort to
demonstrate that such policies are unconstitutional. The only purpose identified by plaintiff for

3

such evidence would relate only to plaintiff’s claims for municipal liability under § 1983.
Because the Court has granted summary judgment on those municipal liability claims, the
identified purpose for evidence of policies and procedures has been eliminated. In an excessive
force case, evidence of an officer’s violation of a law enforcement policy or procedure is
generally not admissible to prove that the officer violated the Fourth Amendment, because law
enforcement agencies are permitted to provide standards that go above and beyond the
requirements of the Fourth Amendment. See Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151, 1163-64 (10th
Cir. 2005). The Motion in Limine is thus granted as to this category of evidence.2
III.

Conclusion
The defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 76) is granted in part and denied in part, as

specified above.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2015.

2

In their summary judgment presentations, both plaintiff and the defendants provided
exhibits and argument relating to TCSO policies and procedures. In an attempt to bolster his
summary judgment argument that he acted in an objectively reasonable manner in shooting
plaintiff, Deputy Hill presented several exhibits that related to his alleged compliance with
policies and procedures. At trial, Deputy Hill will not be permitted to introduce evidence
relating to policies or procedures if the plaintiff is not permitted to introduce such evidence.
Hence, although the Court has granted the defendants’ Motion in Limine with respect to policies
and procedures, the Court will reconsider this ruling at trial if the defendants open the door to
introduction of such evidence, or if plaintiff identifies, in advance, a legally proper purpose for
any use or reference to policies or procedures.
4