Rahman v. Lee

Background

The court ruled on six motions in limine filed by Defendant Chung Lee and three filed by Plaintiff Rashid Rahman. A motion in limine asks the court to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented to the jury. The court applied the federal rules concerning relevance, unfair prejudice, expert testimony, evidence of other acts, and impeachment with prior convictions.

Defendant’s Motions

1. Failure-to-exhaust defense — denied. Lee sought to exclude evidence unrelated to a 2017 prison grievance concerning a disagreement over a treating physician’s prescription of blood-thinning medication. Lee argued that Rahman had failed to complete the prison grievance process required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court held that this defense had been waived because the parties’ final pretrial order did not mention it. The court also noted that Lee offered no reason for raising the defense late and that a motion in limine was not the proper way to seek a dispositive ruling on the issue. The first motion was denied on each of those grounds.

2. Evidence and damages after September 2, 2019 — denied. Lee sought to exclude evidence of medical treatment and damages after that date, arguing that Rahman’s claims and evidence should be limited to the original complaint. The court found no supporting authority and distinguished the decision Lee cited, which involved adding new claims and defendants rather than presenting evidence about events occurring after the complaint. The court also found that Lee had waited until shortly before trial to raise his discovery objection and had not followed the required process for discovery disputes. The second motion was denied.

3. Testimony about other inmates — partly resolved and otherwise reserved. Lee sought to prevent four proposed witnesses—Sean Pritchett, Shannon Dickinson, Aaron Dockery, and Wayne Stewart—from testifying about Lee’s treatment of other inmates. Rahman conceded that he would not call them to testify under the rule limiting evidence of other acts to purposes such as motive, intent, or knowledge. The court therefore denied that part of the motion as moot, and Rahman may not offer their testimony for that purpose. The court reserved the remainder of the motion until trial. It stated that it was inclined to allow testimony about the witnesses’ observations of Rahman’s damages, allow Lee to ask about the other lawsuits against him, and bar testimony about Lee’s medical treatment of those witnesses, but it would revisit those issues if Rahman called them as rebuttal witnesses.

4. Dr. Carinci’s expert testimony — denied in part, remainder reserved. Lee sought to exclude the report and testimony of Rahman’s medical expert, Dr. Adam Carinci, or to limit the testimony to the report. The court rejected Lee’s relevance and reliability objections. It found that Carinci’s expertise in pain management, review of medical literature, and review of Rahman’s medical records provided a sufficient basis under the rule governing expert testimony. The court also found that testimony about appropriate treatment for chronic pain could help the jury evaluate the care Rahman received, even though Carinci did not personally examine Rahman and did not offer an individualized opinion about every treatment decision.

The court therefore ruled that Carinci’s report and expert testimony could be admitted at trial and denied that portion of Lee’s motion in part. Because Rahman agreed that Carinci’s testimony should be limited to his report and supporting information specifically related to Rahman’s care, the court reserved the portion seeking to define that limit until the parties submitted a stipulation.

5. Specific damages amount — granted. Lee sought to prevent Rahman from asking the jury to award a particular dollar amount. The court granted the motion, reasoning that such requests are generally disfavored in the Second Circuit because they may anchor the jury’s expectations and Rahman had given no specific reason to depart from that practice.

6. Rahman’s prior convictions — granted in part and denied in part. Lee sought to use Rahman’s prior felony convictions to challenge his credibility. The court ruled that none of the convictions involved an element requiring proof of a dishonest act or false statement, so admission was not automatically required under the rule for such crimes.

The court denied admission of Rahman’s 1989 convictions for first-degree robbery and second-degree murder. Because more than ten years had passed since his release from imprisonment for those convictions, the court applied the heightened balancing test for older convictions and found that their limited value in assessing truthfulness did not substantially outweigh the risk of prejudice.

The court granted the motion in part as to Rahman’s 2012 second-degree burglary conviction. It allowed Lee to present the essential facts of that conviction, including the offense’s name, date, and sentence. The court concluded that the burglary conviction had meaningful impeachment value and that its prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh that value. The court barred evidence of Rahman’s 2012 convictions for first-degree attempted assault, second-degree possession of a weapon, and third-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance because their limited value in assessing truthfulness was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfairly inflaming the jury. The sixth motion was therefore granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff’s Motions

1. Medical-provider opinion testimony — granted in part and denied in part. Rahman sought to bar Lee and other medical-provider witnesses from giving expert or opinion testimony. The court ruled that Lee, nurse Ellen Scofield, and nurse Jennifer Gallagher could not give expert testimony based on information they did not learn while treating Rahman because they had not submitted expert reports. They could testify about opinions formed during their treatment of Rahman. If Rahman’s expert criticized their medical assessments, they could be recalled to respond on rebuttal. The court granted Rahman’s motion to that extent and denied it to the extent it sought to bar all opinion testimony by those witnesses.

2. Prior convictions of four proposed witnesses — granted. Rahman sought to prevent Lee from introducing information about the prior convictions of Pritchett, Dickinson, Dockery, and Stewart. The court applied the rules governing felony convictions used to challenge a witness’s credibility. It found that the convictions had low value for assessing truthfulness and that the risk of prejudice outweighed that value. The motion was granted, and Lee was barred from eliciting information about those convictions.

3. Specific damages amount — denied. Rahman sought permission to suggest a specific dollar amount for damages. The court denied the motion because it had already granted Lee’s motion barring such a request.

Disposition and Effect

Judge Loretta A. Preska stated that the rulings were made before a developed trial record and could be revised at trial if necessary. The court directed the clerk to close docket entries 43 and 46, which contained the parties’ motions in limine. The opinion addresses trial evidence and does not state a final resolution of the underlying medical-care claims.