Gay v. Parsons

Background

The court held a pretrial conference on August 12, 2026, heard argument on the parties’ motions in limine, and addressed the parties’ theories and stipulations. A motion in limine asks the court to decide before trial whether particular evidence or arguments may be presented to the jury. Gay stipulated that he would drop his claims for compensatory damages and seek only nominal and punitive damages. He reserved the question whether he would introduce evidence concerning an emotional-distress interview from 2015.

Defendants’ motions

Motion No. 1—evidence of compensatory damages. Defendants argued that the rule from Heck v. Humphrey barred a claim connected to the 2015 parole denial unless that denial had been invalidated, that causation was too speculative, and that Gay needed expert testimony to establish physical or emotional injuries. Because Gay would not seek compensatory damages, the court granted the motion as to evidence about whether he would have received parole in 2015 absent defendants’ conduct. The court also granted the request to exclude evidence of physical manifestations of emotional distress to the extent that evidence was relevant only to whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act allowed compensatory damages for emotional distress.

The court rejected defendants’ argument that Gay could present evidence of emotional distress only through a psychological expert. If Gay chose to introduce that evidence, he could testify about experiences such as feeling depressed, anxious, or sleep deprived, and about headaches or stomachaches, but he could not self-diagnose. He could also testify about surrounding facts from which the jury might infer causation, although he could not directly testify about causation. The opinion’s reproduced text ends during an additional statement that Motion No. 1 was granted as to testimony by Gay that “directly addresses,” so the remainder of that statement is unclear.

Motion No. 2—limiting Gay to discovery disclosures. Defendants sought to limit Gay’s testimony about the 2015 Comprehensive Risk Assessment to 14 sections identified in his interrogatory responses. The court denied the motion. It found that Gay’s response stated that the entire report reflected racial and religious bias, and that any failure to supplement the response was harmless because defendants had access to the report for years, the report was central to the case, and there was no indication of bad faith.

Motion No. 3—separating liability and punitive damages. The court granted in part and denied in part this motion. The first stage of trial will address liability and whether Gay is entitled to nominal or punitive damages. If the jury finds for Gay on liability and finds that he is entitled to punitive damages, a second stage will address evidence of defendants’ net worth and the amount of any punitive award.

Motion No. 4—testimony about governing authorities. The court granted the motion to the extent Gay may not testify about what a rule, regulation, law, or constitutional provision requires because he is not a legal expert. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion regarding evidence of emotional distress based on Gay’s understanding of those authorities. The ruling was without prejudice to defendants’ objections at trial.

Motion No. 5—characterizing the parole stipulation. Gay agreed not to introduce evidence that his 2015 parole stipulation resulted from duress or undue influence. The court therefore denied the motion as moot.

Gay’s motions

Motion No. 1—records connected to the 2015 assessment. Defendants did not object to excluding records created after the 2015 Comprehensive Risk Assessment in light of Gay’s decision not to seek compensatory damages. The court granted the motion as to those later records. It denied the motion as to records defendants considered when preparing the 2015 assessment because those records were relevant to whether defendants acted with discriminatory intent. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about which exhibits were part of the record considered in preparing the assessment.

Motion No. 2—2018 assessment and Dr. Wendy E. Chan’s testimony. The court granted the motion because defendants stipulated that they did not object to excluding the 2018 assessment and Dr. Chan’s testimony.

Motion No. 3—parole-hearing transcripts. The court granted the motion to exclude transcripts from Gay’s October 7, 2015 and October 31, 2018 parole hearings. Defendants stipulated that they did not object to excluding them in light of Gay’s decision not to seek compensatory damages.

Motion No. 4—Jennifer Shaffer’s testimony. Gay sought to exclude Shaffer’s testimony about the Comprehensive Risk Assessment process as cumulative. The court denied the motion without prejudice to objections at trial. The court stated that it would be better able to evaluate the admissibility of Shaffer’s testimony during trial and cautioned defendants against offering duplicative testimony.

Motion No. 5—destroyed interview notes. Gay sought to prevent defendants from testifying about the contents of Dr. Gregory S. Goldstein’s destroyed 2015 interview notes. The court denied the motion. It relied on an earlier spoliation ruling that found gross negligence in the destruction of the notes but did not find bad faith or conduct serious enough to justify barring testimony about their contents. The earlier ruling allowed an instruction telling the jury that the notes were destroyed and that it may, but need not, infer that they were relevant and favorable to Gay. The court also found that Gay could cross-examine defendants and use that instruction to address prejudice.

Motion No. 6—financial or career harm. The court granted the motion to exclude evidence that a judgment against defendants would cause them financial harm. It clarified that the ruling did not bar testimony about defendants’ beliefs during the 2015 psychological interview that discriminatory comments could have harmed their jobs or compensation.

Further directions

The parties were ordered to provide supplemental materials and meet and confer about revised proposed jury instructions and verdict forms reflecting the court’s rulings by August 26, 2026. Judge Spero signed the order on August 18, 2026.