Fetty v. City of Baton Rouge

518 F.Supp.3d 923

Nicholas A. FETTY, et ux.

v.The CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Chief Murphy J. Paul, Jr., Chief of Police, Baton Rouge City Police; Secretary James M. LeBlanc, La Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections; Col. Kevin W. Reeves, Superintendent, La State Police; Officer Brian Strong, BRPD; Seven (7) Yet to be Identified La State Troopers

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-945-SDD-RLB

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

Signed February 11, 2021

John B. Brumfield, Jr., Baton Rouge, LA, for Nicholas A. Fetty, Emily C. Fetty.

Tedrick K. Knightshead, Knightshead Law Firm, Alan Gregory Rome, Attorney at Law, Joseph K. Scott, III, Joseph K. Scott, III, Attorney at Law L.L.C., Sarah Shannahan Monsour, Office of the Parish Attorney, Baton Rouge, LA, for City of Baton Rouge, Murphy J. Paul, Jr.

Andrew Blanchfield, Chelsea Acosta Payne, Crews Reynolds LeBlanc, Jr., Keogh, Cox & Wilson, Ltd., Baton Rouge, LA, for James M. LeBlanc, Kevin W. Reeves.

Tedrick K. Knightshead, Knightshead Law Firm, Joseph K. Scott, III, Joseph K. Scott, III, Attorney at Law L.L.C., Sarah Shannahan Monsour, Office of the Parish Attorney, Baton Rouge, LA, for Brian Strong.

Joseph K. Scott, III, Joseph K. Scott, III, Attorney at Law L.L.C., Sarah Shannahan Monsour, Office of the Parish Attorney, Baton Rouge, LA, for Joel Pattison, Brian Watson.

RULING

SHELLY D. DICK, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Motions in Limine to Exclude the Testimony and Report of Lloyd Grafton¹ by Defendants, Secretary James LeBlanc, Department of Corrections, and Colonel Kevin Reeves, Superintendent of Louisiana State Police and by the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge ("City/Parish"), Chief of Police, Murphy J. Paul, Jr. ("Chief Paul"), Officer Brian Strong ("Strong"), Officer Joel Pattison ("Pattison"), and Officer Brian Watson ("Watson")(or collectively, "the City/Parish Defendants"). Plaintiffs Nicholas A. Fetty ("Fetty" or "Plaintiff") and Emily Fetty ("Emily" or "Plaintiffs") have filed an Opposition² to these motions, to which Defendants filed a Replies.³ For the following reasons, the Court finds that Defendants’ motions should be granted to the extent set forth below.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On November 1, 2017, Plaintiffs attended a concert at the Texas Club in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.⁴ That night, Fetty was arrested in the parking lot of the club by several officers with the Louisiana State Police Fugitive Task Force.⁵ Fetty acknowledges that the arrest was made pursuant to an arrest warrant for his alleged conduct that occurred about two weeks prior to his arrest, on or about October 13, 2017, in a subdivision south of the campus of Louisiana State University.⁶ The arrest warrant was for the alleged false imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon and simple assault committed by Fetty.⁷ Fetty claims that the officers used unreasonable and excessive force in making this arrest, and as result, he suffered significant injuries.⁸ Fetty filed this lawsuit asserting that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violated his rights under the Louisiana Constitution and tort law.

II. ARGUMENTS

The above-named Defendants have moved⁹ to exclude certain testimony and conclusions in the purported expert report of Plaintiffs' "police policy and procedure" expert, W. Lloyd Grafton ("Grafton").¹⁰ Grafton reaches four primary conclusions as expressed in his report:

Opinion #1: It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty that the use of force by the arresting officers (Baton Rouge City Police Officers and Louisiana State Police) was clearly not necessary and objectively unreasonable, resulting in harm and injury to Nicholas Fetty.

Opinion #2: It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty that the three arresting officers failed to follow their PPCT Training when taking Mr. Fetty into custody.

Opinion #3: It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty that the arresting officers were unprofessional in their handling of the incident involving Mr. Fetty on November 2, 2017.

Opinion #4: It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty that the ‘choke hold’ on Mr. Nicholas Fetty was force that was unnecessary and unreasonable resulting in harm to Mr. Fetty.¹¹

Defendants argue these opinions/conclusions should be excluded in their entirety or limited in scope because they: "(1) will not assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact at issue[ ]; (2) offer legal conclusions; and (3) reference evidence upon which experts in the field of police policies and procedures would not rely to formulate their opinions and instead use that evidence to make credibility determinations about witnesses and parties in this case."¹²

Defendants also move to exclude other statements in Grafton's report which are based on Grafton's credibility determinations and assumptions that rely entire on Plaintiffs’ version of events. Defendants point to Grafton's question, when "was Trooper Huval telling the truth and when was he lying?"¹³ Then, according to Defendants, Grafton improperly concludes that the troopers lack credibility and cannot be trusted.¹⁴ Defendants argue this demonstrates that Grafton improperly assumes Plaintiffs’ version of events are true and discounts the troopers’ description of the arrest. This subjective review of the materials in this matter will not aid the trier of fact in understanding the trial evidence.

Further, Grafton admits he was not given any information to suggest Fetty had been drinking on the night of the arrest;¹⁵ yet, Fetty testified that he split a bottle of champagne with his wife and consumed two to three beers before the arrest.¹⁶ Thus, Defendants contend Grafton's opinions are based upon incomplete or erroneous data.

Grafton also admits that his opinions are based on the assumption that Fetty did not resist arrest during the incident; thus, he concludes the alleged striking of Fetty's nose was excessive force.¹⁷ However, the officers who arrested Fetty dispute that he was struck in the face and will testify that Fetty did resist arrest. Thus, Defendants argue that, rather than assist the jury, Grafton's conclusions and statements improperly weigh credibility and essentially instruct to the jury how to find as to these disputed issues of fact.

Defendants also challenge Grafton's conclusion that, based on a letter of reprimand issued to Trooper Huval back in 2014, it is "an accepted rule ... that a person's past behavior will give you a good idea how they will act or perform in the future."¹⁸ Considering this letter of reprimand is for a single event that occurred more than three years prior to the incident at issue, drawing conclusions in this matter based on this piece of likely inadmissible evidence flies in the face of Fed. R. Evid. 703 and 704. Grafton then uses this basis to provide conclusions based on his credibility determinations from the reliance on this type of evidence:

Grafton then claims that the acts described in the letter offer a "glimpse" into Trooper Huval's character such that the trier of fact should ask, "At what point and at what time was Trooper Huval telling the truth and when was he lying?"¹⁹ Again, Grafton's testimony about the witness's credibility is improper. Further, Grafton references a prior, alleged act from 2014 to attack Trooper Huval's character and argue that Trooper Huval acted in accordance with a description of the trooper's character that Grafton creates. This testimony must be excluded.²⁰

Further, Grafton relies on a video interview of Max Fetty, Fetty's father, wherein Max Fetty discusses events that happened prior to Fetty's arrest and attacks the character of the troopers involved. From this, Grafton draws broad, general conclusions, stating that Max Fetty's description of the officers’ conduct "is a perfect example of why many citizens lose respect for law enforcement."²¹ This, too, is an inappropriate basis for the conclusions reached in this case and provides a biased view that will not assist the jurors at trial and causes undue prejudice.

Plaintiffs respond only generally to Defendants’ motions. Plaintiffs fail to directly and specifically address the items complained of; rather, they focus on Grafton's experience as their sole defense to Defendants’ challenge. Plaintiffs likewise offer general jurisprudence on expert testimony but fail to offer countervailing law or jurisprudence for that offered by Defendants for each issue challenged.

Plaintiffs recount their version of the events, without citation to record evidence, and provide the Court with Grafton's professional credentials and experience in the area of police policy and procedures. Plaintiffs acknowledge that it is for the jury to determine fact issues in this matter but contend that "Grafton's report/testimony sheds much needed expertise and enlightenment" on the resolution of these disputed facts.²² Plaintiffs maintain that Grafton's expertise, which is unchallenged by the Defendants, is necessary to aid the jury in understanding the evidence and determining the facts: "not only will Grafton's testimony help the trier of fact to understand the evidence and to determine the facts, contrary to the Defendants’ argument, but his testimony is also crucial in providing the trier of fact with objective observations, opinions and a necessary counter-point from someone other than one of the Defendants."²³

For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with Defendants’ arguments and will exclude the aforementioned statements and opinions.

III. LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Daubert/Kumho²⁴ Evaluation of Admissibility of Expert Witnesses

Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 :

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the

...