United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
JOHN W. DEGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Suppress
Testimony and Evidence (Doc. 76.) It is opposed. (Doc
86.) After considering the briefs and arguments of counsel,
the Court rules as follows:
The Nature of Plaintiff's Convictions or of Any Arrest
That Did Not Lead to Conviction
with this Court's prior rulings, the jury may be told
that Plaintiff has been convicted of a felony and is serving
his sentence at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center. Federal
Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(A) makes evidence of a felony
criminal conviction admissible subject to Rule 403. The
specific crime for which he was convicted is not relevant,
or, to the extent relevant, its prejudicial effect outweighs
any probative value that it may have. The motion is granted
as to the nature of Plaintiff's convictions or any
motion is also granted with respect to any arrests that did
not lead to conviction.
ARP EHCC 2016-299
exhibit is attached to Plaintiff's motion as Doc. 76-5.
The Court has reviewed this exhibit and, consistent with its
prior ruling in Mack v. Benjamin, No. 13-552, 2015
WL 7313869 (M.D. La. Nov. 20, 2015), the Court grants the
motion to the exhibit as a whole. The exhibit contains
hearsay and information which is irrelevant.
ruling is without prejudice to the Defendant attempting to
introduce specific parts of the exhibit which may, depending
upon the specific document introduced and the purpose for
which it is being introduced or used, be admissible as an
admission, impeachment evidence, or fall into one of the
exceptions to the hearsay rule.
exhibit is attached to Plaintiff's motion as Doc. 76-4.
Defendant represents that he does not intend to introduce
this document. (Doc. 86 at 2.) Plaintiff's motion is
granted. The exhibit contains hearsay, impermissible
character evidence and information which is irrelevant.
Kerry Najolia's Expert Report and Attachments
claims to be “at a loss to understand how to respond to
the motion to excluded (sic) expert Kerry Najolia.”
(Doc. 86 at 3.) The Court is at a loss to understand how
Defendant can construe Plaintiff's motion to exclude the
testimony of their expert since it attempts to exclude the
report, and Defendant never addresses
Plaintiff's objection to the report based on hearsay.
Apparently, Defendant fails to see the distinction between
Najolia's report and his in-court testimony (which is not
objected to). An expert report is generally not admissible as
evidence since it is hearsay. Kerek v. Crawford Elec.
Supply Co., Inc., No. 18-76, 2019 WL 6311365 (M.D. La.
Nov. 25, 2019). Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is granted.
Presumably, Mr. Najolia will be present in court to testify
and may express his opinions as they are reflected in his
Andre Riley Warden's Unusual Occurrence Report Dated
does not attach this proposed exhibit to his motion, and,
therefore, the Court is unable to rule definitively. However,
based on the rationale provided by Plaintiff in his argument
(Doc. 76-1 at 4-5), Plaintiff's motion will likely be
granted. See Mack v. Benjamin, supra, at
*2- 3. Defendant fails to address this Court's opinion in
Mack but, without citation of any supporting case
law, argues that these documents fall into exceptions to the
hearsay rule. (Doc. 86 at 2.) The Court disagrees. Counsel
for Defendant is instructed to notify the Court and opposing