WILLIAMS v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH et al
Filing
153
ORDER denying as moot 92 Motion in Limine; granting 93 Motion in Limine; denying 94 Motion in Limine; denying 95 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 96 Motion in Limine; denying 97 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 98 Motion in Limine; denying 99 Motion in Limine; granting 100 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 101 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 4/1/2016. (lmt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
15cv0402
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
v.
OFFICER ERIC BAKER, OFFICER
BRENDAN NEE, OFFICER NATHAN
AUVIL, and STEPHEN MATAKOVICH,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff brought this civil rights lawsuit seeking damages for false arrest, false
imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Presently before the Court are ten Motions in Limine
filed by Plaintiff. Doc. nos. 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101.1 Defendants have filed
Responses to each of Plaintiff’s Motions.
The Court will address each of Plaintiff’s ten Motions in Limine below:
PLAINTIFF’S TEN MOTIONS IN LIMINE
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or
Argument that Defendants Withdrew Charges Against Plaintiff in Exchange for
a Promise not to Sue (Plaintiff’s Motion, doc. no. 92; Defendants’ Response, doc.
nos. 105-106)
Plaintiff contends that Defendants plan to present evidence and/or argument that
Defendants withdrew the criminal charges against Plaintiff in the underlying matter in exchange
for Plaintiff’s promise not to sue Defendants. Plaintiff argues that this sort of evidence is
inadmissible based upon relevant case law.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert (doc no. 74) was granted by way of a
separate Memorandum Order of Court dated March 31, 2016. See doc. no. 148. Defendants’ seven
remaining Motions in Limine (doc. nos. 76, 78, 80, 82, 85, 87, 89) were also decided in a separate
Memorandum Order dated March 31, 2016. See doc. no. 150.
1
Defendants counter that they do not intend to argue that the Parties reached an agreement
whereby Plaintiff agreed not to sue Defendants if Defendants would withdraw the underlying
criminal charges against Plaintiff. However, Defendants anticipate presenting evidence to show
that Plaintiff proposed such an agreement and Defendants refused to agree to Plaintiff’s terms.
Per Defendants, this evidence will consist of: (1) “witness testimony that Plaintiff and his wife
reached out to City of Pittsburgh Police Officer Robert Valvo to explain the [e]ffects of
[Plaintiff’s] arrest on his job and family”; (2) statements made by Plaintiff whereby he “stated
that any reduction of charges or agreement to community service would still result in the loss of
his job with the State Police”; and (3) “witness testimony regarding statements by Plaintiff
before, during, and after his arrest.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in dicta, has noted that it is
permissible for a person to waive his or her rights to sue for malicious prosecution in exchange
for prosecution’s agreement to withdraw any underlying criminal charges against that person.
See Hilfirty v. Shipman, 91 F.3d 573 (3d Cir. 1996) (Hilfirty offered the “quid pro quo” or
“consideration” of entry into an ARD program and waiving his rights to sue in exchange for the
prosecution not bringing him to trial and nolle processing his common law wife and prosecution
accepted these terms).
In the instant matter, no Party is arguing that an agreement was reached between the
prosecution and Plaintiff in the underlying criminal matter which would preclude Plaintiff from
bringing this lawsuit, and/or Plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution. Thus, the issued raised
by Plaintiff in this particular Motion in Limine is moot.
Next, the Court will consider the evidence Defendants want to present which may relate
to settlement proposals or a “quid pro quo” between the prosecution and Plaintiff in the
2
underlying criminal matter. Any “witness testimony” which repeats statements that Plaintiff or
his wife purportedly made, will be subject to the Hearsay Rule (F.R.E. 801) and any applicable
exclusion or exceptions to the Rule.
Accordingly, the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants
from Offering Evidence and/or Argument that Defendants Withdrew Charges Against Plaintiff in
Exchange for a Promise not to Sue (doc. no. 92), but will defer ruling on “witness testimony”
which purports to re-state statements made by Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s wife until time of trial.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or
Argument that the Plaintiff Damaged his Own Reputation by Publicity Related
to the Filing of the Instant Lawsuit (Plaintiff’s Motion, doc. no. 93; Defendants’
Response doc. nos. 107, 108)
Plaintiff’s lawsuit contains a claim for malicious prosecution. Based on Pennsylvania
substantive law, an element of damages recoverable in a successful malicious prosecution claim
is harm to reputation. The instant Motion filed by Plaintiff seeks to prevent Defendants from
arguing (or presenting evidence) that Plaintiff has damaged his own reputation by bringing this
civil lawsuit.
Defendants counter that Plaintiff intends to present evidence of media coverage
surrounding his arrest on September 1, 2014 in order to prove one or more elements of his
damages. Indeed, this Court issued an Order (see doc. no. 150) denying Defendants’ Motion to
preclude Plaintiff from offering fifteen different news articles. Plaintiff will be permitted to
present these news accounts to the jury to support his alleged damages.
However, Plaintiff’s request to display some or all of the fifteen news accounts of
Plaintiff’s arrest to the jury is not the same as Defendants’ request to offer evidence concerning
media coverage of this civil lawsuit and the related pending trial to the jury. First, providing
media coverage of this trial to the jury is unnecessary. The courtroom is open to the public and
3
there will, no doubt, be a bevy of news reporters whose presence in the courtroom is always
observed by the jurors.
Second, the Court will be regularly instructing the jury that they are not permitted to
consider any news coverage of this trial. Delivering this sort of instruction is part of this Court’s
customary and normal practice in every trial and this instruction is part of the Model Jury
Instructions (jury instruction number 2.14) adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. Permitting the jurors in this case to review current media coverage of this matter
while serving as a juror and receiving the instruction not to review media coverage will at best,
lead to juror confusion, and at worst, potentially lead to a mistrial.
Third, the Court must weigh the chilling effect on future malicious prosecution plaintiffs
if Defendants are permitted to “mitigate” their damages by affirmatively presenting evidence that
the instant trial is garnering media attention, and then arguing that Plaintiff is continuing to
damage his own reputation by bringing this civil lawsuit. As noted by the Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, “. . . the right to file a malicious prosecution case is a deeply important one.”
Hilfirty, 91 F.3d at 583. The Defendants have adequate means to “mitigate” their damages
through cross-examination of Plaintiff as to how the prior publicity surrounding his arrest (i.e.,
the fifteen news articles at P-3 through P-17) affected him and/or his work/earning capacity.
In conclusion, the Court finds that under F.R.E. 403 the probative value of permitting
Defendants to show the jury evidence of media coverage concerning this civil lawsuit (and then
argue/suggest) that Plaintiff has damaged his own reputation by bringing this civil lawsuit, is far
outweighed by: the prejudice to this Plaintiff, the confusion it will cause this jury, and the
chilling/deterring effect such a decision could have on all future plaintiffs. Accordingly, the
Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion (doc. no. 93).
4
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude the Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or
Argument that the Criminal Charges Brought Against the Plaintiff Resulted
from Him Interfering With Defendant's Attempt to Handcuff a Suspect
(Plaintiff’s Motion, doc. no. 94; Defendants’ Response doc. nos. 110, 111)
In this Motion, Plaintiff is attempting to preclude Defendants from offering evidence
and/or arguing that Plaintiff’s arrest and the criminal charges brought against him were due to his
alleged interference with Defendant Baker’s and possibly Defendant Auvil’s attempt to handcuff
a suspect.
Defendants admit that Defendant Baker’s version of the night’s events set forth in an
investigative report he prepared do not “perfectly” match with what the surveillance video of the
night’s events depicts. However, Defendants contend that they should be permitted to explain
the discrepancies. The Court concurs with Defendants.
The evidence, particularly the investigative report prepared by Defendant Baker and the
surveillance video and any discrepancies between these two pieces of evidence, are both relevant
(F.R.E. 401) and admissible (F.R.E. 402) to show what occurred between and among the Parties
on the night in question. The jury – not this Court – must decide how much, if any, weight
should be given to each of these two pieces of evidence, along with any testimony concerning
these pieces of evidence and/or any discrepancies between these two pieces of evidence. For
these reasons, the Court will deny this Motion (doc. no. 94).
4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants From Offering Evidence and/or
Arguing that Defendants Had Probable Cause to Charge Plaintiff With the
Criminal Offense of Riot (Plaintiff’s Motion doc. no. 95; Defendants’ Response
doc. nos. 113, 114)
The basis for this Motion arises from Plaintiff’s interpretation of: (1) the Pennsylvania
statute governing the crime of “riot” as that offense is defined by 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5501, and (2)
Defendant Baker’s deposition testimony surrounding his decision to charge Plaintiff with the
5
crime of riot on the night in question. Defendants disagree with Plaintiff’s interpretation of
Section 5501 defining the crime of riot, and further argue that Defendants had probable cause to
charge Plaintiff with that crime.
To some extent, this Motion, like the Motion immediately preceding this one (doc. no.
94), is rooted in an alleged discrepancy between Defendant Baker’s report and/or deposition
testimony and what is depicted in the surveillance video. If the jury believes Defendant Baker’s
version of what transpired that night, over what is depicted on the video, they may conclude that
Plaintiff was properly charged; or alternatively, if the jury finds that the video more adequately
depicts the night’s events they may choose to hold Officer Baker accountable for wrongfully
charging Plaintiff with the crime of riot. As noted above, it is for the jury to determine how
much, if any, weight should be given to each of these two pieces of evidence, along with any
testimony concerning these pieces of evidence and/or any discrepancies between these two
pieces of evidence. For these reasons, the Court will deny this Motion (doc. no. 95).
5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or
Arguing that Plaintiff by Filing Instant Litigation was "Ungrateful" in Response
to Defendants Withdrawal of Charges Against Him (Plaintiff’s Motion, doc. no.
96; Defendant’s Response doc. nos. 115, 116)
Plaintiff’s Motion argues that Defendants plan to present evidence that Plaintiff was
‘ungrateful’ after the underlying criminal charges against him were withdrawn. Plaintiff does
not point to any documentary evidence nor does he point to any deposition testimony where
Plaintiff’s lack of gratitude is noted or highlighted by Defendants.
Defendants counter Plaintiff’s argument by claiming that they will not present any
evidence that Plaintiff was “ungrateful” to them after they withdrew the criminal charges
pending against Plaintiff. Defendants, however, admit that they do plan to present evidence and
testimony related to the withdrawal of the criminal charges brought against Plaintiff as well as
6
the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of the charges. This sort of evidence is certainly
admissible.
Next, Defendants assert that they plan to present testimony regarding their understanding
“that the whole matter was done and over with after the withdrawal” and “Plaintiff’s statements
to them after the charges were withdrawn.” The Court is uncertain what is meant by “Plaintiff’s
statements to [Defendants]” as no deposition excerpts were provided nor description given.
However, based solely on these submissions – Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendants’ Response –
any statements made by Plaintiff to Defendants are admissible.
Finally, Defendants have indicated that they will testify as “to their feelings and reactions
to the [instant] lawsuit being filed.” The Court does not see how this evidence is relevant under
F.R.E. 401. This evidence will not be permitted.
Based on the foregoing, the court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion (doc.
no. 96) to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or Arguing that Plaintiff by Filing
Instant Litigation was “Ungrateful”. The Motion is granted to the extent that the Defendants
will not be permitted to testify as “to their feelings and reactions to the [instant] lawsuit being
filed.” This evidence is not relevant. The Motion will be denied so as to allow Defendants to:
(1) present evidence and testimony related to the withdrawal of the criminal charges brought
against Plaintiff as well as the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of the charges; and
(2) present evidence of any statements made by Plaintiff to Defendants.
6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants From Offering Evidence and/or
Arguing that Plaintiff Committed the Crime of Aggravated Assault on
Defendant Baker (Plaintiff’s Motion, doc. no. 97; Defendants’ Response doc. nos.
118, 119)
Plaintiff wishes to preclude Defendants from arguing or presenting evidence tending to
prove that Plaintiff assaulted Defendant Baker on the night in question. It is undisputed that
7
Plaintiff was charged with aggravated assault based on the allegation that he struck Defendant
Baker. Plaintiff notes that during Defendant Baker’s deposition, he admitted that there were no
facts in the Affidavit of Probable Cause which supported the criminal charge of aggravated
assault against Defendant Baker.
Defendants concede that Defendant Baker made this admission during his deposition.
Defendants also acknowledge that the video surveillance of the events of that night may or may
not lead a jury to believe that Plaintiff assaulted anyone. However, Defendants argue that they
are entitled to offer any evidence they may have to explain why the charge of aggravated assault
was brought against Plaintiff. This Court agrees. Such evidence – if any – is both relevant and
admissible. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion (doc. no. 97).
7. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Offering Testimony and/or
Argument that they Possessed Probable Cause for Plaintiff's Arrest on the Basis
of Facts Other than those Asserted in the Criminal Complaint (Plaintiff’s
Motion, doc. no. 98; Defendants’ Response, doc. nos. 121, 122)
In this Motion, Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ pretrial statement (doc. no. 72) indicates
that Defendants will offer testimony and/or argument that the surveillance video of the night in
question provides a basis for Plaintiff’s arrest. Plaintiff argues that any such evidence or
argument should be precluded because the video did not form the basis of the probable cause
which led to Plaintiff’s arrest that evening. Rather, Plaintiff argues that it was Defendant
Baker’s decision to arrest Plaintiff and he made his decision to do so based on his personal
observation of Plaintiff and based upon information relayed to him by others who were at the
scene on the night in question – not the video recording.
Defendants argue that they must be permitted to argue that probable cause existed for the
charges they filed on the night in question. The Court concurs with this general sentiment.
Additionally, Defendants admit that there are some discrepancies between what was written by
8
Defendant Baker in the Criminal Complaint and what is depicted in the surveillance video, but
argue that these discrepancies do not “negate probable cause.” Again, the Court concurs with
this sentiment.
However, it appears to this Court that Defendant Baker prepared his Affidavit of
Probable Cause based (in part) upon his own memory of the events as they transpired on the
night in question. He did not rely on the surveillance video when he prepared his report.
Accordingly, evidence as to what Defendant Baker relied upon in creating his Affidavit of
Probable Cause and/or the Criminal Complaint will be permitted, but he will be precluded from
claiming that he relied upon the surveillance video at the time that he prepared these documents.
It is for the jury to decide whether the images depicted in the surveillance video support
or contradict the statements made in the Affidavit of Probable Cause and/or the Criminal
Complaint. Accordingly, the Court will grant in part and deny in part this Motion (doc. no.
98). The Motion will be granted so as to preclude Defendants from testifying or their counsel
from arguing that statements set forth in the Affidavit of Probable Cause and/or the Criminal
Complaint relied upon the surveillance video. The Motion will be denied in all other respects.
8. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence or Argument
that the Criminal Charges were Withdrawn as a Courtesy to Plaintiff (Plaintiff’s
Motion, doc. no. 99; Defendants’ Response, doc. nos. 124, 125)
Plaintiff wants to preclude Defendants from asserting that they withdrew the underlying
criminal charges against Plaintiff as a courtesy to him. Plaintiff argues that such an assertion is
not relevant evidence to any issue in this case. Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that even if it is
relevant, it is more prejudicial than probative under F.R.E. 403.
Defendants argue that their reasons for withdrawing the charges are highly relevant, and
the evidence which supports their reasons is not more prejudicial as suggested by Plaintiff.
9
The Court begins by noting that the Parties agree that there was no agreement between
Plaintiff and Defendants concerning a waiver of his malicious prosecution claim in exchange for
Defendants’ decision to withdraw the criminal charges pending against Plaintiff. (See the
Court’s more detailed discussion on this matter in section “1” above, relating to Plaintiff’s
Motion in Limine filed at doc. no. 92.)
Given the lack of agreement, the Court finds that any evidence concerning why
Defendants chose to withdraw the criminal charges pending against Plaintiff is relevant.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion (doc. no. 99) and will allow Defendants to
offer testimony and argument as to why the underlying criminal charges against Plaintiff were
withdrawn.
9. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Offering Google Printout as
Evidence at Trial (Plaintiff’s Motion, doc. no. 100; Defendants’ Response, doc.
nos. 127, 128)
Plaintiff next wants to preclude Defendants from offering a Google search printout (noted
on the Exhibit List as D-1) because Plaintiff believes Defendants plan to use this document as
evidence that Plaintiff, by bringing this lawsuit, re-energized the 2014 news cycle concerning the
underlying criminal incident and thereby damaged his own reputation.
Defendants’ Response indicates that Defendants want to show that the instant civil
lawsuit has generated as many news articles as the underlying criminal lawsuit. Defendants
believe they are entitled to present this evidence and argument. Defendants also argue that
because Plaintiff claims his work has been adversely affected by the news coverage surrounding
the underlying criminal case, they want to defend themselves by showing that this civil lawsuit is
prolonging the awareness of the underlying criminal case.
10
First, the Court notes that it has already ruled that Defendants are precluded from
offering evidence and/or arguing that Plaintiff damaged his own reputation by deciding to bring
this civil lawsuit. (See the Court’s more detailed discussion on this matter in section “2” above,
relating to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine filed at doc. no. 93.)
Second, even if the civil lawsuit has revived the media’s interest in the underlying matter,
as Defendants suggest, Defendants may not claim or assert that this revitalization is Plaintiff’s
fault. Again, Plaintiff is not responsible for the damage to his own reputation caused by the
underlying criminal lawsuit which served as a catalyst for the instant civil lawsuit.
For these reasons, and those set forth in section “2” above, the Court will grant this
Motion (doc. no. 100).
10. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Testimony or Other Evidence Regarding Events
Alleged to Have Occurred During the Wedding Reception (Plaintiff’s Motion,
doc. no. 101; Defendants’ Response, doc. nos. 132, 133)
In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks an Order precluding Defendants from discussing the events
which transpired on the Gateway Clipper and which eventually led to the altercation between the
groom, his groomsman, and a third party. Plaintiff, the groom’s brother, was not present during
the altercation, and only arrived on the scene following the altercation – after the Defendants
were present.
Defendants counter that this information helps to explain why Defendants were present
that night and “how it played into their dealings and charging Plaintiff.”
The Court finds that the general information regarding why Defendants were present at
the scene is relevant, i.e., that Defendants were called to the scene because a physical altercation
was occurring (or had occurred) among three men: the groom, his groomsman, and a third party.
However, any evidence concerning any event which allegedly transpired on the Gateway Clipper
11
during the wedding reception, prior to Defendants’ summons and involvement, will only serve to
distract the jury from focusing solely on the claims and defenses to this lawsuit. This evidence is
not relevant to Plaintiff’s arrest and the charges brought against him.
Accordingly, the Court will grant in part and deny in part this Motion (doc. no. 101).
The Motion will be granted so as to preclude Defendants from introducing testimony or evidence
concerning the alleged events which transpired prior to the altercation among the groom, his
groomsman, and a third party. The Motion will be denied in all other respects so as to enable
general testimony or evidence to be presented indicating: (1) that an altercation occurred among
the groom, his groomsman, and a third party; and (2) how, why, and when Defendants were
summoned to the scene of the altercation.
ORDER
1. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or
Argument that Defendants Withdrew Charges Against Plaintiff in Exchange for a
Promise not to Sue (doc. no. 92) is DENIED AS MOOT.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or
Argument that the Plaintiff Damaged his Own Reputation by Publicity Related to the
Filing of the Instant Lawsuit (doc. no. 93) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or
Argument that the Criminal Charges Brought Against the Plaintiff Resulted from Him
Interfering With Defendant's Attempt to Handcuff a Suspect (doc. no. 94) is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or
Argument that Defendants Had Probable Cause to Charge Plaintiff With the Criminal
Offense of Riot (doc. no. 95) is DENIED.
12
5. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or
Argument that Plaintiff by Filing Instant Litigation was “Ungrateful” in Response to
Defendants Withdrawal of Charges Against Him (doc. no. 96) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART as described in detail above.
6. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or
Argument that Plaintiff Committed the Crime of Aggravated Assault on Defendant Baker
(doc. no. 97) is DENIED.
7. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence and/or
Argument that they Possessed Probable Cause for Plaintiff’s Arrest on the Basis of Facts
Other than those Asserted in the Criminal Complaint (doc. no. 98) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART as described in detail above.
8. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Offering Evidence or
Argument that the Criminal Charges were Withdrawn as a Courtesy to Plaintiff (doc. no.
99) is DENIED.
9. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Offering Google Printout as
Evidence at Trial (doc. no. 100) is GRANTED.
10. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Testimony or Other Evidence Regarding Events Alleged to Have
Occurred During the Wedding Reception (doc.no. 101) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as described in detail above.
SO ORDERED, this 1st day of April,
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc:
ECF registered counsel of record
13
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?