United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
W. deGRAVELLES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
the Court is the Motion in Limine to Suppress Testimony
and Evidence filed by plaintiff Raymond Demoulin
(“Plaintiff” or “Demoulin”). (Doc.
50.) It is opposed by defendant Shane Ladner
(“Defendant” or “Ladner”). (Doc. 59.)
For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
January 20, 2016, Plaintiff was an inmate at Elayn Hunt
Correctional Center (“EHCC”) located in the
Middle District of Louisiana. Plaintiff claims that Defendant
applied excessive and unnecessary force in violation of his
constitutional rights, resulting in serious injuries.
Defendant denies the claim and contends that any force used
was necessary and justified. Defendant also denies Plaintiff
suffered any serious injuries in the incident.
issue in this motion in limine is:
Medical and Mental Health Records of Plaintiff from
10/01/2015 to 1/19/2016;
Warden's Unusual Occurrence Reports from January 20,
Complete Medical and Mental Health Records of Shane Ladner;
Disciplinary Reports for 1/20/2016 (Defendant's Exhibit
and Mental Health Records from 10/01/15 to
argues that “[t]he medicals that predate this incident
are not relevant to this claim and should be excluded”,
including “evidence that any other person, whether it
be an inmate or corrections office (sic), caused the injuries
of which he complained after the incident at hand.”
(Doc. 50-2 at 2.) Defendant argues that evidence of
“previous injuries sustained by the plaintiff to the
same areas where he is complaining that were injured in his
Complaint” is relevant to the question of what
injuries, if any, were caused by Defendant and the amount
which properly should be awarded, if any, for those injuries.
(Doc. 59 at 2.)
Court agrees with Defendant. Evidence of previous or
subsequent injuries or conditions in the area where he claims
he was injured by Defendant is relevant to the question of
damages. However, records not associated with such injuries
or conditions will not be admitted into evidence.
Unusual Occurrence Reports
contends that these UORs are hearsay and should be precluded
from evidence. (Doc. 50-2 at 2 (citing Mack v.
Benjamin, No. 13-522, 2015 WL 7313869, at *2-3 (M.D. La.
Nov. 20, 2015) (deGravelles, J.)).) Defendant responds that
the documents are not being offered “for the statements
therein, but instead to prove that the policies of Elayn Hunt
correctional Center were followed by the officers.”
(Doc. 59 at 3.)
the Court agrees with Plaintiff. Defendant has not attempted
to explain how the UORs prove that the officers complied with
prison policies, what policies Defendant contends that these
documents prove were followed, how following these policies
is relevant to an issue in the case or how the truth of the
contents of the UORs would not ...