Carter v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 97

Court Minutes and Order from Final Pre-trial held 10/19/21 before Judge Brett H Ludwig. The Court directed the parties to report to Courtroom 225 on the morning of trial at 8:30 a.m. Jury selection will occur in the courtroom at 9:00 a.m. Granting in part and denying in part 76 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 77 Motion in Limine; granting 78 Motion in Limine; granting 79 Motion in Limine; granting 80 Motion in Limine; granting 81 Motion in Limine; granting 82 Motion in Limine; granting 83 Motion in Limine; granting 84 Motion in Limine. (Court Reporter Sue Armbruster.) (MP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Court Minutes and Order
HEARING DATE:
JUDGE:
CASE NO.:
CASE NAME:
MATTER:
APPEARANCES:

October 19, 2021
Brett H. Ludwig
18-cv-0727-bhl
Carter v. Watson, et al.
Final Pretrial Conference
Lisa C. Goldman, Attorney for Plaintiff
Nathaniel Cade, Jr., Attorney for Plaintiff
David J. Lang, Attorney for Erika Watson
Katherine C. Polich, Attorney for Tara Weidemann
Brandon T. Flugaur, Attorney for Tara Weidemann
TIME:
2:04 p.m. - 3:14 p.m.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Melissa B.
COURT REPORTER:
Sue Armbruster

The Court directed the parties to report to Courtroom 225 on the morning of trial at 8:30
a.m. Jury selection will occur in the courtroom at 9:00 a.m. The Court will conduct voir dire
with the parties’ proposed voir dire questions in mind.
The parties discussed which witnesses they anticipate calling. The Court briefly
addressed the parties’ objections to certain witnesses. The Court directed the parties to consider
stipulating to the institution’s “policies and procedures” to limit the number of unnecessary
witnesses providing repetitive information. The Court ordered the parties to coordinate so that
witnesses are only called to testify once. The Court then reiterated the importance of working
together to avoid unnecessary witnesses in light of the on-going pandemic.
The parties discussed exhibits. The Court encouraged the parties to stipulate to facts,
when possible. The Court directed the parties to provide courtesy copies of their exhibits in a
tabbed binder on or before the morning of trial.
The Court addressed the parties’ Motions in Limine, see Dkt. Nos. 76-84, many of which
were not disputed. The parties presented brief arguments on the disputed motions. The Court
took under advisement Defendant Weidemann’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 and indicated
that it would issue a ruling on those motions prior to trial. The Court granted Defendant
Weidemann’s Motion in Limine Nos. 3 and 4 because any prior litigations, including
disciplinary proceedings, involving Defendant Weidemann and the Department of Corrections
were not relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 as it did not tend to make any fact of
consequence in this case more or less probable. The Court granted Defendant Weidemann’s
Motion in Limine No. 5, but reminded the defendants that it was their responsibility to provide
evidence proving the dates of the plaintiff’s prior felony convictions, along with the dates of the
plaintiff’s release from custody for those felony convictions, before the Court would allow
introduction of that evidence at trial, consistent with Federal Rules of Evidence 609(a)-(b). The

Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 for the same reasons
explained in Defendant Weidemann’s Motion in Limine No. 5. The Court granted Plaintiff’s
Motion in Limine No. 11 because any subsequent criminal investigation by the Eau Claire Police
Department involving Defendants was not relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 as it did
not tend to make any fact in this civil case more or less probable. And the Court granted
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Nos. 2-10 & 12 as undisputed.
The Court advised the parties that it will provide copies of proposed jury instructions on
the morning of trial. The parties should be prepared to participate in a jury instruction
conference at the end of the first day of trial to finalize jury instructions.
For the reasons stated at the final pretrial conference, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant
Weidemann’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-5 (Dkt. No. 76) are GRANTED in part. Motions 1 and
2 will be resolved prior to trial; Motions 3, 4, and 5 are granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-5 (Dkt. No. 77)
are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Motion 1 is granted in part and denied in part;
Motions 2-5 are granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine Nos. 6-12 (Dkt. No. 7884) are GRANTED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on October 25, 2021.
s/ Brett H. Ludwig
BRETT H. LUDWIG
United States District Judge