Christopher v. Dakota County

Background

Plaintiff Tywan G. Christopher brought suit against Dakota County and Sergeant Brady Ruark, apparently arising from an assault he suffered while in pretrial detention at the Dakota County Jail. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts of the assault in detail, but the context of the rulings indicates that a third party, Dominique Malone, is alleged to have physically assaulted Christopher, and that the defendants (a county and a jail supervisor) face claims related to the conditions or circumstances surrounding that assault. The case was proceeding toward trial, and the court held a pretrial conference on September 10, 2025, to resolve motions in limine (pretrial motions asking the court to exclude certain evidence from trial) and other evidentiary disputes. This written order memorializes the bench rulings issued at that conference and resolves issues taken under advisement.

Defendants' Motions in Limine

First Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 73) — Injury Causation

Defendants moved to exclude evidence of certain injuries Christopher allegedly suffered, arguing he had no expert testimony establishing that the assault caused those injuries. The court denied this motion in large part, finding that the causal connection between the assault and the injuries is sufficiently apparent that a jury can draw the inference without expert testimony. The court noted that whether to pursue damages relating to dental injuries remained an open question for plaintiff's counsel to clarify.

Second Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 74) — Treating Physicians

Based on Christopher's representation that he would not call any treating physicians as trial witnesses, defense counsel agreed the motion was moot. No ruling was required.

Third Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 75) — 2003 Conviction for Dishonesty

Defendants sought to impeach Christopher's trial testimony using evidence of a 2003 criminal charge for providing false information to a police officer, under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 609(a)(2), which allows prior convictions involving dishonesty or false statement to be used to attack a witness's credibility. The court granted this motion. Although the conviction is more than ten years old — a factor courts consider under FRE 609(b) — the court found it highly probative because Christopher's credibility is a central issue in the case. The conviction may be identified by name and by the year it occurred.

Fourth Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 76) — Seven Prior Felony Convictions

Defendants sought to impeach Christopher under FRE 609(a)(1) — which allows felony convictions to be used for impeachment subject to a balancing test weighing probative value against prejudicial impact — with seven prior felony charges. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part:

- Denied as to the 2007 conviction for violating an order for protection and the 2008 conviction for second-degree possession of a controlled substance. These were excluded due to their age and potential to unfairly prejudice the jury.

- Granted as to the 2019 fifth-degree assault charge. This is the charge for which Christopher was in pretrial detention at the time of the assault at issue. It may be referenced by name, the fact that Christopher entered an Alford plea (a plea where the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges the prosecution has sufficient evidence to convict), and that he received a thirty-six-month sentence running consecutively with other charges.

- Granted in part as to four additional felony convictions from 2019 and 2020 (two violations of orders for protection, a violation of a no-contact order, and another violation of a no-contact order). The jury may be told that Christopher had four additional felony convictions that were sentenced concurrently with the thirty-six-month sentence — but the names of those charges may not be used.

The court further ruled that these prior convictions may be introduced only through questioning of Christopher himself. Supporting records will not be admitted unless Christopher denies having the relevant criminal history. The court will also give the jury a limiting instruction explaining the limited purpose for which prior convictions may be considered.

Plaintiff's Motions in Limine

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 (Dkt. No. 89) — Comparative Fault

Christopher moved to exclude any evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that he or Dominique Malone (the person alleged to have assaulted him) bears comparative fault for his injuries. Christopher argued: (1) comparative fault principles do not apply because Malone is not a party; (2) under Minnesota law, fault cannot be apportioned between a negligent party and an intentional tortfeasor; and (3) there is no evidence supporting any contributory fault on Christopher's part.

The court did not rule on this motion at the pretrial conference and has continued to hold it under advisement. The court cited numerous Minnesota statutes and cases it is examining, including Minnesota Statutes §§ 604.01 and 604.02 (Minnesota's comparative fault scheme), and several Minnesota Supreme Court, court of appeals, and federal district court decisions. The court noted that a relevant Minnesota appellate decision — Glay ex rel. McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc. — was granted further review by the Minnesota Supreme Court and remains pending. The court stated it will discuss this issue further with the parties before trial.

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 (Dkt. No. 90) — Defendants' Exhibits 136–147

Christopher moved to exclude twelve incident reports prepared by Defendant Sergeant Ruark (dated between August 2018 and February 2024), which Defendants sought to introduce as Exhibits 136–147. The court granted this motion, finding that the exhibits were not timely disclosed to the plaintiff. However, this ruling does not bar Sergeant Ruark from testifying about his general practices in responding to requests for protective custody at the Dakota County Jail.

Deposition Designation Rulings

The court addressed objections to the use of deposition transcripts — written records of pretrial witness interviews — as evidence at trial. The court overruled Defendants' objections to designations from the depositions of Dominique Malone, Donald Chandler, and Sloane McPherson. As to Christopher's objections to Defendants' designations from Malone's deposition, the court sustained the objections in part (regarding pages 8:20–9:1), overruled them in part (regarding pages 10:12–11:1), and accepted a party agreement on redacting a sentence at page 13:17.

Defense Exhibits 105 and 106 — Audio Recordings

Christopher objected to two audio recordings offered by Defendants.

- Exhibit 105: The court overruled Christopher's objection. The recording will be admitted.

- Exhibit 106: The court initially took under advisement Christopher's argument that the recording is protected by the attorney-client privilege, then issued its ruling in this written order, overruling the objection.

Exhibit 106 is a recording of a phone call Christopher made from the Dakota County Jail to a law firm after the assault, for the purpose of seeking legal advice as a prospective client. He did not ultimately establish an attorney-client relationship and was referred elsewhere. Christopher argued the communication is privileged even for prospective clients who do not retain counsel.

The court rejected this argument. Relying on United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666, 674 (8th Cir. 2003), the court held that because the jail's phone system notified Christopher that the call was being recorded — and he had to affirmatively press a button to continue the call — he had no reasonable expectation that the conversation would remain private. Under Hatcher, the presence of the recording device is the functional equivalent of a third party being present on the call, which destroys the attorney-client privilege. Exhibit 106 will therefore be admitted.

Summary of Dispositions

- Defendants' First Motion in Limine (Dkt. 73): Denied in large part - Defendants' Second Motion in Limine (Dkt. 74): Moot - Defendants' Third Motion in Limine (Dkt. 75): Granted - Defendants' Fourth Motion in Limine (Dkt. 76): Granted in part, denied in part - Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 (Dkt. 89): Under advisement - Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 (Dkt. 90): Granted - Objection to Defense Exhibit 105: Overruled - Objection to Defense Exhibit 106: Overruled