Bryant v. City of Hartford

585 F.Supp.3d 179

Samuel BRYANT, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF HARTFORD et al., Defendants.

No. 3:17-cv-01374 (VAB)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed February 11, 2022

Filed February 14, 2022

Wesley S. Spears, Law Offices of Wesley S. Spears LLC, West Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff.

Nathalie Feola-Guerrieri, City of Hartford, Hartford, CT, for Defendants City of Hartford, Hartford Police Department, James C. Rovella.

Scott Roland Ouellette, Williams Walsh & O'Connor, LLC, North Haven, CT, James G. Williams, The Law Offices of Williams, Walsh & O'Connor, LLC, for Defendants Robert Fogg, Brian Salkeld.

James G. Williams, The Law Offices of Williams, Walsh & O'Connor, LLC, for Defendants John Doe, Jane Doe.

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Victor A. Bolden, United States District Judge Samuel Bryant ("Plaintiff") has sued Hartford police officers, Officer Robert Fogg, and Detective Brian Salkeld (together, "Hartford Police Officers"), Chief James C. Rovella, and the City of Hartford, Connecticut (collectively, with the Hartford Police Officers, "Defendants"), alleging claims arising from police conduct during and after his arrest on June 28, 2015. Am. Compl., ECF No. 35 (Mar. 23, 2018).

Following the Court's Ruling and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, see Ruling and Order on Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 103 (Sept. 30, 2021) ("Ruling and Order"), Mr. Bryant filed four motions in limine seeking additional peremptory challenges [ECF No. 121] and to exclude certain categories of evidence [ECF Nos. 122, 123, and 126]. Mr. Bryant also has filed amended exhibit and witness lists [ECF Nos. 129, 131, 133, 135, 136].

Officer Robert Fogg and Detective Brian Salkeld have filed a motion in limine seeking to limit various categories of evidence [ECF No. 118]. Additionally, the City of Hartford has filed a motion in limine to preclude references to the remaining claim against it [ECF No. 119], as well as any new evidence or witnesses contained in Mr. Bryant's amended exhibit and witness lists [ECF No. 137].

For the reasons outlined below, Officer Fogg and Detective Salkeld's [118] Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART as to the exclusion of references to Black Lives Matter and nationally publicized incidents of police misconduct, the testimony of witnesses not previously disclosed during discovery, and testimony and other evidence relating to the events on which summary judgment has been granted, and DENIED IN PART as to testimony or other evidence on Defendants’ past uses of force, disciplinary history, and prior lawsuits, without prejudice to renewal at trial.

The City of Hartford's [119] Motion in Limine to exclude any references to the remaining indemnification claim against it is GRANTED .

Mr. Bryant's [121] Motion in Limine for additional peremptory challenges is GRANTED ; [122] Motion in Limine to exclude his convictions that are more than ten years old is DENIED , without prejudice to renewal at trial; [123] Motion in Limine to exclude the testimony of the Defendants’ expert Daniel Wicks is DENIED , without prejudice to renewal at the time of trial; and [126] Motion in Limine to exclude previously undisclosed cell phone video footage is GRANTED . Mr. Bryant's [129] Motion to Amend/Correct the Exhibit List to include a map of certain areas of the City of Hartford is GRANTED , subject to the conditions described below.

Defendants’ [137] motion to preclude the witnesses and evidence identified in Mr. Bryant's amended witness and exhibit lists is GRANTED . These additional witnesses and evidence are precluded, with the exception of information pertaining to the City of Hartford's revenue and expenditures, which is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at trial.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Familiarity with the facts and prior proceedings, as detailed in the Court's September 30, 2021 Ruling and Order, is assumed. Ruling and Order.

On September 30, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Id. at 1, 36. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hartford Police Officers on Mr. Bryant's claim that they failed to render adequate medical assistance, and denied summary judgment as to Mr. Bryant's remaining claims, thereby allowing the following claims to proceed to trial: (1) excessive force, (2) assault and battery, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligence, (5) statutory municipal liability, (6) reckless and/or willful conduct, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (8) failure to intervene. Id.

As to the excessive force claim, the Court permitted the case to proceed to trial against the Hartford Police Officers only with respect to the events that took place after the assault to which Mr. Bryant already had pled guilty under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-167c(a)(1), and after the initial use of the taser against Mr. Bryant, when he fled after the assault. Id. at 1–2, 17, 23–26.

On November 12, 2021, the parties filed their Joint Trial Memorandum. Joint Trial Mem., ECF No. 117 (Nov. 12, 2021) ("Joint Trial Mem.").

The same day, Officer Fogg and Detective Salkeld moved in limine to exclude various categories of evidence. Def. Officers’ Fogg's and Salkeld's Omnibus Mot. in Lim., ECF No. 118 (Nov. 12, 2021) ("Hartford Police Officers Mot."). The City of Hartford also filed a motion in limine to preclude references to the remaining indemnification claim against it. City of Hartford's Mot. in Lim. to Preclude Reference to Pl.’s Statutory Claim Against City of Hartford, ECF No. 119 (Nov. 12, 2021) ("City of Hartford Mot.").

On November 16, 2021, Mr. Bryant filed motions in limine seeking additional peremptory challenges, Mot. in Lim. Request for Additional Peremptory Challenges, ECF No. 121 (Nov. 16, 2021), and to exclude certain categories of evidence, Mot. to Exclude Convictions of the Pl., ECF No. 122 (Nov. 16, 2021); Mot. in Lim. to Exclude the Testimony of Def.’s Expert Daniel Wicks, ECF No. 123 (Nov. 16, 2021). The Court thereafter granted Mr. Bryant's motion for leave to file his motions in limine nunc pro tunc. Order, ECF No. 130 (Nov. 18, 2021).

On November 18, 2021, Mr. Bryant filed an additional motion in limine , Mot. in Lim. to Exclude the Ex. on Def.’s Am. Ex. List Filed on November 17, 2021, ECF No. 126 (Nov. 18, 2021) ("Pl. Mot. to Exclude Exs."), as well as a proposed amended exhibit list, Pl.’s Am. Ex. List, ECF No. 129 (Nov. 18, 2021).

Mr. Bryant also filed proposed amended witness and exhibit lists on November 19, 22, 26, and 29, 2021. Pl.’s Am. Witness List, ECF No. 131 (Nov. 19, 2021); Pl.’s Am. Witness List, ECF No. 133 (Nov. 22, 2021); Pl.’s Am. Witness List, ECF No. 135 (Nov. 26, 2021); Pl.’s Am. Ex. List, ECF No. 136 (Nov. 29, 2021).

On December 3, 2021, the City of Hartford filed an objection to Mr. Bryant's amended witness and exhibit lists. City of Hartford's Obj. to Pl.’s Am. Witness and Ex. List and Mot. to Preclude Evid. on Dismissed Claims, ECF No. 137 (Dec. 3, 2021) ("City of Hartford Opp'n"). Mr. Fogg and Mr. Salkeld joined the City of Hartford in its objection in full. Def. Officers’ Fogg's and Salkeld's Obj. to Pl.’s Am. Witness and Ex. List and Mot. to Preclude Evid., ECF No. 138 (Dec. 3, 2021).

On December 14, 2021, Officer Fogg and Detective Salkeld filed objections to Mr. Bryant's motions in limine. Def. Officers’ Fogg's and Salkeld's Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. in Lim. to Exclude Convictions of the Pl., ECF No. 140 (Dec. 14, 2021); Def. Officers’ Fogg's and Salkeld's Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. in Lim. to Exclude the Ex. on Def.’s Am. Ex. List, ECF No. 141 (Dec. 14, 2021) ("Defs.’ Opp'n to Mot. to Exclude Exs.").

On November 17, 2021, the Court set the final pre-trial conference for January 11, 2022, with jury selection and trial to begin on January 18, 2022. Min. Entry, ECF No. 127 (Nov. 17, 2021).

On December 21, 2021, Detective Salkeld moved to modify the scheduling order to continue the dates for the pre-trial conference and jury selection. Mot. to Modify Scheduling Order and Mot. for Conference with Court, ECF No. 142 (Dec. 21, 2021).

The Court held a status conference on December 22, 2021, and subsequently ordered the parties to file proposed dates for the pre-trial conference and jury selection by January 5, 2022. Min. Entry, ECF No. 144 (Dec. 23, 2021).

On December 31, 2021, the Court granted Detective Salkeld's motion to modify the scheduling order, and continued the pre-trial conference until May 4, 2022, with jury selection and the trial date to take place on May 9, 2022. Order, ECF No. 146 (Dec. 31, 2021).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Motions in limine provide district courts the opportunity to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence. See Luce v. United States , 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) ; Palmieri v. Defaria , 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996). "A district court's inherent authority to manage the course of its trials encompasses the right to rule on motions in limine. " Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider , 551 F. Supp. 2d 173, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

A court should only exclude evidence on motions in limine if the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. Levinson v. Westport Nat'l Bank , No. 09-cv-1955 (VLB), 2013 WL 3280013, at *3 (D. Conn. June 27, 2013). The court also retains discretion to reserve judgment on some or all motions in limine until trial so that the motions are placed in the appropriate factual context. See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. L.E. Myers Co. , 937 F. Supp. 276, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants’ Motion in Limine

Officer Fogg and Detective Salkeld seek to limit the following evidence: (1) any references to Black Lives Matter or nationally publicized police misconduct cases, Hartford Police Officers Mot. at 7–9; (2) any testimony about the Defendant officers’ prior use of force, disciplinary history, and past lawsuits, id...