Reno v. County of Putnam

Background

The defendants filed a motion in limine, which is a request to restrict evidence or testimony before trial. They sought to prevent or limit testimony by Wayne A. Robbins, whom the plaintiff identified as an expert in correctional practices. The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The opinion states that, after a stipulation, the case appeared to involve three remaining claims against three defendants: a Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim against Karen Jackson and Richard Bartley under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; a First Amendment retaliation claim against Jackson and Bartley under § 1983; and a retaliation claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act against the County of Putnam.

Court’s Analysis

Robbins’s report expressed seven opinions. Several opinions criticized management, supervision, training, and policy. The court explained that these opinions reflected a municipal-policy theory sometimes called a Monell claim, under which a local government may be liable under § 1983 when its policy or custom causes a constitutional injury. But the remaining § 1983 claims were against Jackson and Bartley, not the County. The court also stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act claim did not include this municipal-policy theory.

Because the individual defendants’ liability would depend on their own actions rather than a County policy or practice, the court found Robbins’s opinions about County or department-wide management, supervision, training, and policy irrelevant to the remaining constitutional claims. The court also ruled that an expert could not testify about another witness’s candor or credibility, because credibility decisions belong to the jury. General observations about inconsistent or conflicting reports were likewise excluded as expert opinions, although defense counsel could question witnesses about those inconsistencies during cross-examination.

The court excluded opinion number 3 because it concerned Officer Vecchione, who was no longer a defendant. Opinions about whether force was justified were admissible only to the extent they concerned the actions of Jackson and Bartley; opinions about Officer Villani’s actions, for example, were irrelevant. The opinions in paragraphs 5 and 6 were excluded because they applied only to the municipal-policy theory.

The court stated that it lacked enough information to evaluate opinion number 7. Before the plaintiff could present that opinion through Robbins, the plaintiff had to submit supporting documents and a fuller description of the opinion at least one business day before the proposed testimony.

The court separately addressed the defendants’ request to exclude Robbins’s expert report. The court stated that the report did not appear admissible by itself and that the plaintiff did not argue otherwise, so it denied that portion of the motion as moot.

Disposition

Judge Lisa Margaret Smith granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion in limine. The court precluded the specified opinions about municipal policies, credibility, the former defendant, and other irrelevant conduct; allowed limited testimony about whether force was justified; required additional materials before opinion number 7 could be offered; and denied as moot the request to preclude the expert report. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 68.