Barringer v. Clackamas County et al

Filing 117

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS (re: Motion in limine - Defendant's Objection to Plaintiff's Exhibit #5 98 Defendants' Objections 101 . IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2012, by U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (see attached order for details) (peg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT COURT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

AGNES LAURIE BARRINGER,
Plaintiff,

Case No.: 3 :09-CV -00068-AC
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS
TO EXHIBITS

v.
CLACKALvIAS COUNTY and
DEPUTY ALANA DAVIS
Defendants.

ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge:
This order addresses parties', Plaintiff Agnes Laurie Barringer ("Barringer") and Defendants
Clackamas County and Deputy Alana Davis ("Defendants"), respective objections to proposed trial
exhibits which appear on the record as Docket No. 101 (plaintiffs Objection to Witnesses and
Exhibits) and Docket No. 98 (Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Exhibit 5). The court's rulings
on the pmiies' motions in limine are intended to instruct the pmiies on the admissibility of witness

Page 1 - ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS

{RMD}

testimony and exhibits. Much of the content of this order will overlap with that of the order on
motions in limine ("MIL"), but in the event of a conflict between a motion in limine ruling and a
ruling on an objection to witness testimony or an exhibit, the cOUli's ruling on the motion in limine
controls.

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit No.5: Use ofForcc Incident Report relating to inmate Joshua Milow Gould, prepared
by Alana Dayis on March 5, 2007.
RULING: DEFERED UNTIL TRIAL
Defendants' objection to Exhibit No.5, the Use of Force Incident Report relating to inmate
Joshua Milow Gould, is DEFERRED UNTIL TRIAL for the reasons stated in the court's ruling on
Defendants' MIL 1.

Exhibit No.3: Clackamas County Sheriff's policy on use of force in the jail.
RULING: DEFERRED UNTIL TRIAL
Although Defendants did not object to Plaintiff's Exhibit No.3, the Clackamas County
Sherriff's policy on use offorce in the jail, the court has doubts about the admissibility of this exhibit
in all circumstances. The cOUli previously denied Barringer's motion to amend her complaint to add
a iVfonell claim against Clackamas County. Docket No. 110. In light of that ruling, the jail's policy
on use of force would be irrelevant to detennine whether an individual officer violated the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. However, until Deputy Davis
testifies to explain what actions she took and why she took them, specifically whether she was
following policy in some or all of her actions, the court cannot determine whether the policy is
relevant and admissible. Accordingly, the court DEFERS ruling on this question until trial.

Page 2 - ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS

{RMD}

DEFENDANTS' EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. 102: Jail poUcy relating to inmate searches
RULING: SUSTAINED·
The Defendants wish to introduce, as Exhibit No. 102, the Clackamas County Jail policy
relating to inmate searches. Defendants offer this exhibit to show that if jail personnel searched
Ba11'inger (something the Defendants deny), they were acting pursuant to and within the confines of
Clackamas County policy on imnate searches.
Barringer argues that this evidence is i11'e1evant, as she has dismissed all claims previously
asserted regarding an alleged unlawful search.

Barringer has dismissed her allegations that

Clackamas County deputies conducted an unlawful digital cavity search, and only alleges that her
constitutional rights were violated when Deputy Davis handcuffed her to the bench in her cell.
Because an alleged unlawful search is no longer at issue in this case, the Clackamas County policy
on inmate searches is no longer relevant. Barringer's objection, therefore, is SUSTAINED.

Exhibit No. 104: Courthouse Video
RULING: SUSTAINED
While Barringer did not expressly object to Exhibit No.1 04, a video depicting couliroom
deputies leading Barringer through the courtroom hallway, this evidence is excluded for the reasons
stated in Barringer's MIL 1.

Exhibit No. 106: Audio Contempt Order
RULING: SUSTAINED
Barringer's objection to Exhibit No. 106, the audio recording of the court proceeding in
which Ba11'inger was held in contempt of court, is SUSTAINED for the reasons stated in the couli's
Page 3 - ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS

{RtvlD}

ruling on Barringer's MIL 1.
IT IS SO ORDERED

C);;{

.

DATED this -.L day of May, 2012

X/W_

Jlb.T-::-"'y:-,'--cA---=C:C:O==S==T-+A-"="=---'

--:C

United, States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 - ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS

{RLvID}