Ridge v. Havas

Background

Trial was scheduled to begin on February 6, 2023. The parties filed motions in limine—requests for advance rulings about whether particular evidence could be presented at trial. The opinion notes that all claims against Detective Dillon A. Ottino had previously been dismissed on summary judgment, so he was no longer in the case even though his name remained in the caption. The remaining disputes concerned evidence related to Ridge’s excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims.

Defendants’ motions

The defendants sought to use information about Ridge’s burglary conviction, his petit-larceny convictions, and his pending false-personation and petit-larceny charges. They also sought to bar testimony from an unnamed eye doctor and Ridge’s father, and to exclude a statement recorded in a medical record.

The court ruled that information known to the officers when Ridge was arrested could be relevant to the excessive-force claims because the reasonableness of the force depends on the circumstances confronting the officers at the time. But the certificate showing the ultimate disposition of the arrest was irrelevant to whether the officers used excessive force and was excluded.

The court allowed the defendants to cross-examine Ridge about his 2017 conviction for third-degree burglary for impeachment—that is, to challenge his credibility. The questioning was limited to the fact of the conviction. The defendants could not ask about the sentence or whether the conviction resulted from a guilty plea or a trial.

The court precluded the defendants from introducing evidence of Ridge’s 2013 and 2014 petit-larceny convictions. Although the convictions could have some relevance to truthfulness, they were nearly ten years old, had limited probative value, and could prejudice Ridge without helping the jury decide whether excessive force was used. The court also precluded evidence of Ridge’s pending 2017 false-personation and petit-larceny charges because the charges were unproven and their potential prejudice outweighed their probative value.

The court did not immediately bar the unnamed eye doctor. Although Ridge had not identified the doctor or made the required disclosures despite having had substantial time to do so, the court allowed Ridge until December 9, 2022, to identify the doctor. The defendants then would have an opportunity to depose the doctor and obtain a rebuttal witness before trial.

The court granted the defendants’ motion concerning Ridge’s father because Ridge stated that he would not call his father as a witness. The court also found the testimony irrelevant because Ridge had testified that no one, including his father, was present during the arrest.

The court precluded a statement in Ridge’s medical record that a transporting officer said Ridge was “hit like a linebacker” by another officer. The transporting officer was not a defendant, and the opinion states there was no evidence that the officer witnessed the arrest. The court found the statement unreliable hearsay and more prejudicial than probative.

Plaintiff’s motions

Ridge asked the court to exclude evidence of additional convictions and complaints. The court precluded evidence of his 2001 robbery convictions, his 2010 controlled-substance-possession conviction, and his 2012 attempted controlled-substance-possession conviction. The court declined to decide Ridge’s broad request concerning unspecified convictions or complaints because it lacked enough specificity, reserving judgment until trial when particular evidence could be considered in context.

Ridge also sought to exclude evidence concerning a temporary restraining order obtained by Kaila Grant, a related warrant, and domestic disputes. The court allowed evidence that Ridge had, or thought he had, an active warrant for his arrest because it could bear on his motivation for fleeing the police. The court did not allow evidence about the warrant’s subject, substance, or background, and excluded evidence of the temporary restraining order and domestic disputes.

The court also precluded medical records from Ridge’s December 2016 visit to Orange Regional Medical Center. The records described Ridge’s hospitalization after a scuffle with police, but the court found them unrelated to the current claims, prejudicial, and likely to confuse the issues.

Disposition

Judge Judith C. McCarthy concluded that the parties’ motions in limine were granted in part and denied in part. The clerk was directed to close the pending motions and mail a copy of the opinion and order to Ridge, who was proceeding without a lawyer at that point.