Chepilko v. Police Officer Scott Henry

What the court considered

The court ruled on motions in limine, which are requests made before trial to control the evidence or arguments presented to the jury. The parties’ motions were granted in part and denied in part.

Defendants’ requests

1. The defendants objected to exhibits listed by the plaintiff in the joint pretrial order. The court stated that it had already addressed those objections in its January 30, 2024 order, which sustained some objections, overruled others, and allowed certain exhibits for limited purposes.

2. The defendants sought to prevent the plaintiff from presenting evidence or arguments concerning claims that had been dismissed. The plaintiff said he did not intend to offer such evidence. The court therefore denied this part of the defendants’ motion as moot.

3. The defendants sought to prevent evidence about any New York City Police Department member’s disciplinary history or prior lawsuits. The plaintiff said he did not intend to elicit that testimony. The court denied this part of the defendants’ motion as moot.

4. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s excessive-force and First Amendment retaliation claims. The court said this request was effectively a second motion for summary judgment, which is a request to decide a claim without a trial based on the undisputed record. The court declined to convert the request into a summary-judgment motion because doing so at that late stage would require additional submissions and procedural protections. The court denied this part of the defendants’ motion and stated that it would address the merits of the plaintiff’s claims after trial.

5. The defendants sought to prevent the plaintiff from seeking punitive damages. The court denied this part of the motion as premature. It stated that it would address punitive damages with the defendants’ anticipated motion under Rule 50, or at the conclusion of trial, as appropriate.

6. The defendants sought to bar documentary and testimonial evidence about emotional-distress damages beyond “garden variety” damages, meaning ordinary emotional-distress damages. The plaintiff did not object to this limitation, so the court granted this part of the defendants’ motion.

7. The defendants sought to prevent the plaintiff from referring to unrelated alleged police misconduct, class actions, and criminal investigations. The plaintiff said he did not intend to do so. The court denied this part of the motion as moot.

8. The defendants sought to prevent the plaintiff from testifying or offering evidence about his prior lawsuits against the City of New York and New York City Police Department members, and about unrelated disciplinary allegations he had made against other police officers. The plaintiff said he did not intend to do so. The court denied this part of the motion as moot.

Plaintiff’s request

9. The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendants from introducing evidence of the plaintiff’s other lawsuits. Because the defendants had themselves sought to prevent the plaintiff from offering evidence about those lawsuits, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion.

The court added that if a party testifies about a subject that the party successfully sought to exclude, the opposing party may ask that party questions about that subject.

Classification and effect

This was a pretrial evidence order. The court did not decide the merits of the excessive-force or First Amendment retaliation claims. It denied some requests, granted others, and left certain issues for trial or later consideration. Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered the order on February 6, 2024.