Pacheco v. City of Springfield, Tennessee et al

Filing 387

ORDER granting 329 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 7/26/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

Motion GRANTED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

JOSE OSMIN CALDERON PACHECO,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILL JOHNSON, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as an Officer of the
Springfield Police Department,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action
No. 3:11-CV-00221

Judge Aleta A. Trauger
Magistrate Judge Joe Brown
JURY DEMAND

MOTION IN LIMINE #22 BY OFFICER WILL JOHNSON REGARDING THE
LIMITATION OF TESTIMONY INVOLVING
THE OPINIONS OF POLICE OFFICERS
Defendant Officer Will Johnson (“Johnson”), in accordance with the Case Management
Order, (DE 296), files this Motion in Limine #22 to limit any opinion testimony from other
police officers as to whether Officer Johnson’s actions were reasonable.
Pursuant to Rules 602 and 701, Defendant Johnson moves the Court in limine for an
order prohibiting Plaintiff’s counsel from asking police officer witnesses of their opinion
regarding the reasonableness of Defendant Johnson’s actions and from police officer witnesses
testifying about the reasonableness of Defendant Johnson’s actions. No other police officers were
present on the scene during Officer Johnson’s pursuit of Plaintiff. Further, no video evidence
exists regarding the pursuit. Thus, no other police officer has the requisite personal knowledge
needed to testify about the incident or whether Defendant Johnson’s actions were reasonable.
Therefore, as no other police officer has personal knowledge as it relates to Defendant
Johnson’s pursuit of Pacheco, any testimony from those police officers as it concerns the