Small v. New York City Department of Correction

Background

This order addresses motions in limine, which are requests made before trial to limit or control the evidence presented to the jury. The opinion states that the court’s rulings were based on arguments held on November 20, 2020, December 18, 2020, and January 20, 2021, as well as the parties’ February 24, 2021 joint submission. The order concerns evidence relating to Samuel Small’s claims, including his claim for damages from injuries to his head and face and claims identified as supervisory liability and municipal liability claims.

Rulings on the motions

The court ruled as follows:

- Small’s motions to exclude evidence, testimony, references, or suggestions concerning his criminal history and disciplinary or infraction history were granted. - Small’s motion concerning unauthenticated defense exhibits and transcription of handwritten documents was denied as moot. - Small’s motion to exclude internal Department of Correction policies was denied. - The defendants’ motion to exclude testimony from witnesses not identified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) was denied. The defendants’ specific objection to Patrick Walsh’s testimony was also denied. Their specific objections to Angela Taglione, Frederick Gay, and Martin Horn were denied as moot. - The defendants’ motion concerning documents from other civil lawsuits, newspaper articles, and press releases was granted in part and denied in part. The order identified particular proposed exhibits as inadmissible or admissible, and said the objection to proposed exhibits 32 and 49 was denied as moot because Small no longer intended to offer them. - The defendants’ motion concerning evidence of Kirk Fisher’s conviction was denied as moot. - The defendants’ motion concerning Small’s proposed exhibits 51 and 52 was granted in part and denied in part; the exhibits could be admitted if data from 2010 or later was redacted. - The defendants’ motion concerning disciplinary histories or prior misconduct allegations involving Captain Kelly, Officer Simon, and Officer Feinstein was denied as moot. The court reserved ruling until trial on the motion concerning Defendant Emmanuel Bailey. - The defendants’ motion to prevent Small from referring to defense counsel as “City Attorneys” was denied. Their motion concerning discussion of indemnification was denied as moot. - The defendants’ motion to prevent Small from requesting a specific dollar amount from the jury was denied as moot. - The defendants’ motion seeking a declaration that their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 statement was not a judicial admission was granted. - The defendants’ motion to prevent an in-camera document review was denied as moot. - The defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice Small’s supervisory-liability and municipal-liability claims was denied. - The defendants’ motion to divide the trial into separate phases was denied.

Medical records

Small’s motion to exclude the defendants’ medical-record exhibits was granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that:

- Exhibits D6, F4, F11, and F13 were not excluded because records made shortly after the assaults were relevant to damages. - The court reserved ruling on exhibit D3 until trial. - Exhibits C7, C14, C47, C54, and C56 were granted as to Small’s request to exclude them. The court found that the records concerned injuries different from those at issue, or risked being used as improper character evidence, unless the defendants could establish that the injuries were actually of the same nature. - Exhibits C10, C11, C17, C18, C40, C41, C42, and C45 were denied as to Small’s request to exclude them because the injuries documented were of the same nature as the injuries at issue and could show an alternative cause of those injuries. The court said it would consider redactions and a limiting instruction. - Exhibits C2–4, C6, C12, C13, C19, C33–34, C38, and C48–51 were granted as to Small’s request to exclude them. The court found that the records did not identify why Small had refused medical treatment and therefore could cause the jury to speculate or be misled. - Exhibits C5, C8, C9, C22, C52, C53, and C55 were granted as to Small’s request to exclude them because pain medication for unrelated conditions was not relevant to the damages claim and risked confusing the jury. - Small’s requests concerning exhibits C20, C27, C31, and C43 were denied, although the court said some information could be redacted and a limiting instruction could be considered. - Small’s requests concerning exhibits C24, C28–31, C39, C57, F3, F17, and F27–29 were denied, although the court said some information could be redacted. These records could be relevant to the absence of diagnoses or self-reported symptoms that might reflect post-traumatic stress disorder. - Small’s request concerning exhibits C23, C25, C26, C32, C37, and C44 was granted. Although the records could bear on the same issue, the court found that their connection to a competency evaluation in a criminal matter created a danger of unfair prejudice, misleading the jury, and cumulative evidence.

For medical records ruled admissible, the court required redaction of references to Small’s 1992 gunshot wound, history of substance abuse, criminal record, disciplinary record, and adjustment-disorder diagnosis. The court clarified that the defendants could still argue that concerns and stress in Small’s life affected his emotional and mental health, but could not explicitly refer to his “legal problems and criminal liability exposure” for that purpose. Proposed limiting instructions were due by April 16, 2021.

The defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of disciplinary histories or prior misconduct allegations concerning Defendant Villacis was granted. The court found that the age of the narcotics conviction reduced its value and that the risk of prejudice substantially outweighed its value, making the evidence inadmissible for any purpose, including impeachment.

Untimely objections and disposition

The court denied as untimely the defendants’ numerous objections first raised in their February 24 submission to the extent those objections were intended as motions in limine. The court stated that this did not prevent the defendants from making appropriate objections at trial. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions pending at docket entries 281 and 285.

Judge’s action

Judge Ronnie Abrams issued a pretrial evidence order rather than deciding the ultimate merits of Small’s claims. The classification is therefore procedural.