Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Odom v. Thompson

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky

December 19, 2017

GLENN D. ODOM, II, PLAINTIFF
v.
TABITHA THOMPSON, et al., DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          THOMAS B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on motions in limine by both Defendant Hobert Huddleston, [R. 115], and Plaintiff Glenn D. Odom II, [R. 121]. Huddleston moves the Court to: (1) prohibit Odom from calling any witnesses other than himself, (2) prohibit Odom from introducing any evidence of damages, and (3), in the alternative to the second motion, limit the total amount of damages recoverable by Odom to $15, 000.00. [R. 115 at 1.] Odom responded, [R. 123], and Huddleston replied, [R. 128]. Odom moves the Court to exclude evidence, substance, and details of Odom's criminal convictions and his disciplinary history in prison. [R. 121 at 1.] Huddleston responded, [R. 126], and the time for Odom to reply has passed. For the reasons explained below, all three of Huddleston's Motions in Limine, [R. 115], are DENIED. Odom's Motion in Limine, [R. 121], is GRANTED.

         BACKGROUND

         The general facts of this case are described in the Court's prior opinion, Odom v. Thompson, et al., No. 5:13-CV-211-TBR, 2017 WL 1102701, at *1-2 (W.D. Ky. March 23, 2017). Briefly, Odom, an inmate incarcerated at Kentucky State Penitentiary, brings this Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Unit Administrator Huddleston after his cell door was opened at the same time as that of another inmate, Michael Force, who then stabbed Odom nine times with a metal “shank.” See Odom, 2017 WL 1102701, at *2.

         STANDARD

         Using the inherent authority to manage the course of trials before it, this Court may exclude irrelevant, inadmissible, or prejudicial evidence through in limine rulings. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 103(c)); Louzon v. Ford Motor Co., 718 F.3d 556, 561 (6th Cir. 2013); Mahaney ex rel. Estate of Kyle v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 835 F.Supp.2d 299, 303 (W.D. Ky. 2011). Unless such evidence is patently “inadmissible for any purpose, ” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997), though, the “better practice” is to defer evidentiary rulings until trial, Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975), so that “questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context, ” Gresh v. Waste Servs. of Am., Inc., 738 F.Supp.2d 702, 706 (E.D. Ky. 2010). A ruling in limine is “no more than a preliminary, or advisory, opinion.” United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Luce, 713 F.2d 1236, 1239 (6th Cir. 1983), aff'd, 469 U.S. 38). Consequently, the Court may revisit its in limine rulings at any time and “for whatever reason it deems appropriate.” Id. (citing Luce, 713 F.2d at 1239).

         DISCUSSION

         The Court will address each party's motions in limine in turn.

         I. Huddleston's Motions in Limine

         Defendant Huddleston brings three motions in limine. First, Huddleston moves to prohibit Odom from calling any witnesses at trial other than Odom. [R. 115 at 4 (Huddleston Motion in Limine).] Second, Huddleston moves to prohibit Odom from introducing evidence of damages of any kind or amount. [Id. at 6.] Lastly, and in the alternative to the second motion, Huddleston asks the Court to limit the total damages recoverable by Odom to $15, 000.00. [Id. at 7-8.]

         A. Motion to Prohibit Odom from Calling Any Witness Other Than Himself

         Huddleston first moves the Court to “[p]rohibit the Plaintiff from calling witnesses, other than himself, at the trial of this matter” under the authority of Federal Rule of Procedure 37(c)(1) due to Odom's failure to identify witnesses he intends to call at trial. [Id. at 3-5.] In response, Odom states that, as a pro se defendant, his reference to different people involved with the matter at hand in documents produced in discovery should have been sufficient to alert Huddleston of possible witnesses. [R. 123 at 2 (Odom Response).]

         As cited by both parties, Rule 26(e) provides:

         (1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)--or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission--must supplement or correct its disclosure or response:

(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.