United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
case came before the Court for a pretrial conference on
September 16, 2019 in Dublin, Georgia. Argument was heard on
a number of issues raised in the proposed pretrial order,
motions in limine (doc. no. 185), and objections to trial
exhibits (doc. nos. 182-83). The oral rulings on these issues
are expressed below as an order of the Court:
outset, I note that many of Defendants' motions in limine
ask that I ministerially apply the Federal Rules of Evidence.
That is, Defendants have asked for a pretrial ruling on the
admissibility of matters that, if introduced at trial, would
clearly be inadmissible under the law.
for Defendants are expected to adhere to the highest standard
of professionalism and ethics in the trial of the case and to
be well-versed in the evidentiary rules of law. Accordingly,
to the extent that a motion in limine seeks application of
the Federal Rules of Evidence in a customary and obvious way,
such motion in limine is moot. If an issue related to a
motion in limine mooted herein arises at trial, I will rule
upon it at that time.
Defendants' Motions in Limine
William Danforth, Karen Jordan-Thomas, Kenneth Bell, Rickey
Wilcox, Sam Zanders, Rodney McCloud, and Thomas Taylor filed
ten motions in limine. (Doc. No. 185.) Motions one through
six (id. at 3-8) are MOOT for the
reasons stated in the preface of this Order.
motion seven, Defendants seek to exclude evidence of
Defendants' administrative reporting of the July 15, 2013
incident (the ``Incident") . (Id. at 9.) If any
failure to report the Incident is evidence of concealment of
misconduct, I will rule on the evidence when it is presented.
Defendants' seventh motion in limine is DEFERRED
motion eight, Defendants seek to exclude any reference to
Plaintiff's allegations of evidence spoliation.
(Id. at 10.) Plaintiff's counsel is not planning
to present any evidence of spoliation and will warn her
client to avoid references to spoliation. Defendants'
eight motion in limine is MOOT.
motion nine, Defendants seek to exclude evidence of any lack
of disciplinary action against other inmates involved in the
Incident. (Id. at 11.) Evidence of failure to
discipline will be permitted only for cross-examination and
impeachment purposes. Defendants' ninth motion in limine
is GRANTED IN PART.
motion ten, Defendants seek to exclude evidence of
Plaintiff's claims in this case that were previously
dismissed. (Id. at 12.) This motion is
GRANTED. References to the dismissed claims
may be allowed on cross-examination, depending upon the
Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Trial
made nine objections to Plaintiff's trial exhibits. (Doc.
object to Plaintiff's exhibits one through twenty-eight,
which are audio interviews conducted during an investigation
of the Incident. (Id. at 1-2.) Defendants argue that
the exhibits are hearsay and irrelevant. Plaintiff agreed to
use these audio interviews for impeachment purposes only. It
is so ordered.
object to Plaintiff's exhibit 29, which is the Georgia
Department of Corrections' (``GDC") standard
operating procedure for "POST Orders."
(Id. at 2.) Defendants argue that the policy is
exempt from disclosure and presents a security threat to GDC
operations. Before any mention of such materials in the
presence of the jury, ...