WILLIAMS v. VELEZ et al

Filing 69

ORDER: THAT 1. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS' PRIOR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE OR ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS OR CONSEQUENCES (DOC. NO. 56) IS GRANTED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. 2. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMIN E TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN MEDICAL RECORDS AT TRIAL (DOC. NO. 57) IS GRANTED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. 3. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S CRIMES OR WRONGS (DOC. NO. 58) IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 10/15/2018. 10/16/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (sme, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILBERT WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
OFFICER MOISES J. VELEZ et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION

No. 16-1593

ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 2018, upon consideration of (1) Defendants’
Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Defendants’ Prior Employee Discipline or Adverse
Employment Actions or Consequences (Doc. No. 56) and Plaintiff’s Response thereto (Doc. No.
61); (2) Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Medical Records at Trial (Doc. No. 57)
and Defendants’ Response thereto (Doc. No. 62); and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude
Evidence of Plaintiff’s Crimes or Wrongs (Doc. No. 58) and Defendants’ Response thereto (Doc.
No. 60), it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Defendants’ Prior Employee
Discipline or Adverse Employment Actions or Consequences (Doc. No. 56) is
GRANTED IN PART. To the extent Officer Velez testifies about his disciplinary
record, the Court will permit questioning about specific reprimands received by Officer
Velez, but only to the extent such questions are probative of Officer Velez’s character for
truthfulness or untruthfulness.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Medical Records at Trial (Doc. No. 57) is
GRANTED IN PART. To the extent that the defendants argue that Mr. Williams’s

1

practice of filing sick calls and inmate grievance forms may have some bearing on his
credibility, the Court RESERVES JUDGMENT.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Crimes or Wrongs (Doc.
No. 58) is DENIED as to Mr. Williams’s 2010 and 2005 burglary convictions and
GRANTED as to all other prior convictions and the circumstances preceding Mr.
Williams’s 2015 arrest, but the Court will permit the defendants to reference the fact that
Mr. Williams was in custody at the time of his injury and whether he was unruly while in
custody.

BY THE COURT:

S/Gene E.K. Pratter
GENE E.K. PRATTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2