Pemberton v. City of New York

Background

Before trial, the defendants filed motions in limine, which are requests to decide in advance what evidence or arguments may be presented to the jury. The order addressed eight groups of requests.

Rulings

1. The motion to exclude evidence of any officer’s disciplinary history and personnel record was denied as moot because the plaintiff represented that he did not intend to introduce that evidence.

2. The motion to prevent mention of the City of New York at trial or in the case caption was denied because the City remained a party. The application to prevent the plaintiff from calling defense counsel “City Attorneys” was granted because the reference could unfairly prejudice the individual defendants and had no useful evidentiary value. The motion to prevent the plaintiff from suggesting that the individual defendants would be indemnified was denied as moot because the plaintiff said he did not intend to make that suggestion.

3. The motion to prevent the plaintiff from suggesting a specific dollar amount of damages to the jury was denied.

4. The motion to prevent mention of unrelated alleged officer misconduct, including events reported in the media, was denied as moot because the plaintiff said he did not intend to make such a reference. The motion to prevent use of the terms “testilying” and “blue wall of silence” was granted because the court found those terms inflammatory and lacking evidentiary value. The request concerning similar terms was denied without prejudice because the defendants had not identified those terms.

5. The motion to prevent the plaintiff from arguing that his arrest was racially motivated was denied as moot because the plaintiff said he did not intend to elicit testimony or make that argument. The court stated that the plaintiff could elicit testimony about, and repeat in argument, the race of the individuals involved.

6. The motion to prevent the plaintiff from mentioning economic or punitive damages that the court had already excluded—consequential economic damage to his other businesses, direct damages based on his inability to travel while the criminal case was pending, and punitive damages—was denied as moot because the plaintiff said he did not intend to reference or seek those damages.

7. The motion to prevent the plaintiff from calling any witness on his witness list who had not been identified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) was denied. The court found that all witnesses on the list had been disclosed or otherwise made known to the plaintiff during discovery.

8. The motion to prevent Ellis Charles and Alen Barakovic from testifying because they had not been identified under Rule 26(a) was denied. The court stated that Dr. Charles had been identified in an interrogatory response as having knowledge of the plaintiff’s economic damages, and that Lieutenant Barakovic had appeared on the plaintiff’s “may call” trial list and had been deposed.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the Clerk of Court to record only the preceding summary paragraph in the docket and to close the motions at Docket No. 107. This was a pretrial evidence order; it did not decide the underlying claims described in the opinion.