South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, The et al v. McMaster et al

Filing 396

ORDER AND OPINION denying without prejudice 348 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 349 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 350 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 351 Motion in Limine; deny ing without prejudice 352 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 354 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 355 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 357 Motion in Limine. Signed by the Honorable Toby J. Heytens, the Honorable Richard Mark Gergel, and the Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 9/15/2022.(mdea )

3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG

Date Filed 09/15/22

Entry Number 396

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
The South Carolina State Conference of the
NAACP, and Taiwan Scott, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated
persons,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Thomas C. Alexander, in his official
)
capacity as President of the Senate; Luke A. )
Rankin, in his official capacity as Chairman )
of the Senate Judiciary Committee;
)
James H. Lucas, in his official capacity as )
Speaker of the House of Representatives;
)
Chris Murphy, in his official capacity as
)
Chairman of the House of Representatives )
Judiciary Committee; Wallace H. Jordan, in )
his official capacity as Chairman of the
)
House of Representatives Elections Law
)
Subcommittee; Howard Knabb, in his
)
official capacity as interim Executive
)
Director of the South Carolina State
)
Election Commission; John Wells, Chair, )
Joanne Day, Clifford J. Elder, Linda
)
McCall, and Scott Moseley, in their
)
official capacities as members of the South )
Carolina State Election Commission,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No.: 3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiffs have filed numerous motions in limine to preclude certain evidence or arguments
at trial. Specifically, plaintiffs moved to preclude: evidence or argument that the congressional
map at issue is proper “as a partisan gerrymander” (Dkt. No. 348 at 2); use “for improper purposes”
of the Department of Justice’s preclearance of South Carolina’s 2011 congressional plan and the
decision in Backus v. South Carolina, 857 F. Supp. 2d 553 (D.S.C. 2012), aff’d, 568 U.S. 801
1

3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG

Date Filed 09/15/22

Entry Number 396

Page 2 of 3

(2012), upholding that plan (Dkt. No. 349 at 1); evidence of other potential congressional maps
the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP drafted or submitted or of internal
deliberations of the State Conference or other third parties (Dkt. No. 350); evidence or argument
of post hoc rationales for the congressional map at issue (Dkt. No. 351); lay testimony on subjects
requiring expertise (Dkt. No. 352); testimony invoking reliance on privileged attorney advice in
believing the congressional map was constitutionally permissible (Dkt. No. 354); testimony from
defense expert Sean Trende about opinions or analysis not disclosed in one of his two Rule 26(a)(2)
reports, as well as Senate Defendants Proposed Exhibits 47–60 and 119 (Dkt. No. 355); and
evidence or argument that the congressional map “can withstand constitutional scrutiny because it
complies with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act[ ]” (Dkt. No. 357 at 2).
We deny each motion without prejudice. None of these motions are well suited to pre-trial
disposition. The usual course for “a bench trial” is “the district court can hear relevant evidence,
weigh its probative value and reject any improper inferences.” Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626,
632 (4th Cir. 1994). Indeed, “[t]he rationale underlying pre-trial motions in limine does not apply
in a bench trial, where it is presumed that the [Court] will disregard inadmissible evidence and rely
on competent evidence.” Accident Ins. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc., C/A No. 3:16-cv-02621,
2019 WL 2566950, at *5 (D.S.C. June 21, 2019) (quotation marks omitted). In addition, the
admissibility of much of the evidence in question may be “dependent on the purpose it is offered
for and the context in which it is offered,” (id.), and addressing such matters at trial will permit the
Court to evaluate any evidentiary issues in the fuller context. Accordingly, plaintiffs may raise
their concerns as “objections during the bench trial,” which “will suffice to give the Court the
opportunity to address the exclusion of such evidence.” Greenbrier Hotel Corp. v. Unite Here
Health, C/A No. 5:13-cv-11644, 2016 WL 9781805, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 14, 2016).

2

3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG

Date Filed 09/15/22

Entry Number 396

Page 3 of 3

Plaintiffs’ motions to exclude certain evidence or arguments (Dkts. No. 348, 349, 350, 351,
352, 354, 355, 357) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will rule on any
evidentiary objections as they arise at trial.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States Circuit Judge

United States District Judge

United States District Judge

September 15, 2022
Charleston, South Carolina

3