Motton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

BRANDON MOTTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 4:21-cv-04093

)

CORY RUARK, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

The matter is before the Court for ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial

Reconsideration of the Court’s November 20, 2025 Order on Defendant’s Motion in

Limine No. 10 (Doc. 146) and Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant calling Brett Josie as

a witness.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 146)

Plaintiff’s motion seeks reconsideration of the Court’s November 20, 2025

Order as it relates to the Court’s exclusion of expert testimony regarding the

expert’s findings nos. 3 and 4. A district court “may reconsider interlocutory orders

at any time before final judgment.” Terry v. Spencer, 888 F.3d 890, 893 (7th Cir.

2018). “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest

errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale de

Credit Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff argues that the Court misapprehended the existence of a factual

dispute regarding the nature and operation of segregated housing at the Rock

Island County Jail in light of certain deposition testimony from Defendant Ruark.

Plaintiff contends that limited expert testimony is necessary to assist the jury in

understanding the operational meaning of segregation and typical inmate-

movement practices, and that, absent this testimony, Defendant would be “the

exclusive arbiter” on what actions would be considered reasonable under the

circumstances presented in this case. Plaintiff urges the Court to reconsider its

reliance on Giles v. Tobeck, 895 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2018), and argues that Thompson

v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006), and United States v. Brown, 871

F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2017), permit limited context-based testimony.

The Court continues to find that expert testimony framed in terms of

national standards, institutional policies, or “reasonable officer” requirements risks

inviting the jury to substitute policy-based norms for the constitutional standard of

objective reasonableness. The Court also reaffirms that expert testimony directly

contradicting controlling Seventh Circuit precedent—including Tobeck, which holds

that failing to escort an inmate back to his cell is, at most, negligence in the

circumstances of that case—remains inadmissible. (Doc. 145 at 10–11).

Further, the Court notes that the very deposition testimony Plaintiff relies

upon underscores the risk that expert testimony about “typical” segregation

practices would convey impermissible prescriptive conclusions. Defendant Ruark

testified that segregation at the Rock Island County Jail did not operate as complete

isolation and that inmate interaction was common: it was “very, very, very common

for an inmate to temporarily be in the dayroom at the same time with an inmate on

their hour out.” Ruark Tr. 34:19–35:16; see also 38:23–39:24; 31:7–32:2. The jury

will therefore hear that unescorted movement and inmate overlap occurred by

design and with regularity.

This factual context is important to the objective reasonableness inquiry

because Defendant Ruark’s “knowledge of the factual circumstances informs

whether a reasonable officer under the same circumstances would have developed

subjective or personal awareness of the risk of harm to the plaintiff.” Davis v. Rook,

107 F.4th 777, 780 (7th Cir. 2024) (emphasis in original); see also Kingsley v.

Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397 (2015) (courts “must make this determination from

the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew

at the time, not with 20/20 hindsight.”). Expert testimony suggesting that

segregated housing units ordinarily require escorts or minimize inmate contact

would necessarily imply that the Jail’s actual practice deviated from accepted

norms. Even framed as “context,” such testimony would communicate that

Defendant should have escorted the inmate and that permitting interaction was

improper without regard to the particular circumstances from which this case

arose—effectively importing policy-based standards under the guise of custom or

practice. This is precisely the type of normative, fault-signaling testimony

prohibited by Thompson and Brown and directly inconsistent with Tobeck, which

rejects any constitutional requirement to escort an inmate back to his cell. Allowing

the expert to describe segregation as something that “typically” entails escorts

would invite the jury to apply a non-constitutional benchmark rather than the

objective reasonableness standard under Kingsley and its Seventh Circuit progeny.1

The Court also finds, to the extent that it is relevant, that exclusion of expert

testimony does not render the record so lopsided as to unduly prejudice Plaintiff’s

ability to present his case or risk that the jury will afford undue weight to

Defendant Ruark’s testimony. Defendant Ruark is not the only jail official expected

to testify with knowledge of the factual circumstances surrounding segregated

confinement at the Jail and the methods to minimize any risks of harm that

remained available. See (Doc. 141 at 8) (listing Christopher Young and Jens Lape as

witnesses for Plaintiff at trial); Young Tr. 97:20-99:14 (Christopher Young testified

that he routinely escorted detainees housed in segregation to their cell doors and

had previously ordered detainees in the day room back to their cells); (Doc. 56-3 at

2, ¶ 13) (affidavit from Jens Lape describing the purpose of the cell block in

question). Plaintiff remains free to present this evidence, to use it to establish the

factual circumstances Defendant Ruark faced, and to argue to the jury that a

reasonable officer in his position would have appreciated the risk to Plaintiff and

the measures available to mitigate same.

1 See Kemp v. Fulton Cty, 27 F.4th 491, 496 (7th Cir. 2022) (the objective reasonableness standard

requires a plaintiff to show, in part, that “[t]he defendant did not take reasonable available measures

to abate that risk, even though a reasonable officer in the circumstances would have appreciated the

high degree of risk involved—making the consequences of the defendant's conduct obvious.”)

(emphasis in original); Thomas v. Dart, 39 F.4th 835, 842 (7th Cir. 2022) (objective reasonableness

requires a fact-based inquiry into the particular circumstances of the case); Davis, 107 F.4th at 780-

81 (same).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that the Court erred in its

application of the law or interpretation of the factual issues. Plaintiff’s motion is

denied.

WITNESS BRETT JOSIE

The Court discussed with the parties at the final pretrial conference held

November 17, 2025, an objection Plaintiff had made regarding witness Brett Josie,

who Defendant Ruark had listed in his witness list in the proposed final pretrial

order. Plaintiff argued that Defendant Ruark had failed to identify this witness in

his Rule 26 disclosures, and that the failure to do so had motivated Plaintiff’s

decision not to depose him. The Court’s Order entered November 20, 2025, directed

the parties to file any argument or authority on this issue by December 1, 2025.

(Doc. 145 at 18). Plaintiff filed a brief arguing that the failure to disclose Brett Josie

as a witness prejudiced his litigation strategy. (Doc. 149). Defendant Ruark did not

file any argument or authority on this issue by the deadline.

Rule 26 requires a party to disclose the name of every individual “likely to

have discoverable information…that [the party] may use to support its claims or

defenses,” and to identify “the subjects of that information.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(1)(A)(i). Parties have an ongoing duty to supplement these disclosures “in a

timely manner” if the party learns new information or discovers that previous

disclosure is somehow deficient and “if the additional or corrective information has

not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or

in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).

A party that fails to comply with these disclosure requirements “is not

allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence…at trial, unless the

failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Exclusion

is “automatic and mandatory” unless the noncomplying party can show its violation

was either justified or harmless. David v. Caterpillar, Inc., 324 F.3d 851, 857 (7th

Cir. 2003).

The parties do not dispute that Defendant Ruark failed to disclose Brett Josie

as a witness and that this omission affected Plaintiff’s litigation strategy. Defendant

has not submitted any argument or authority arguing that the omission was

justified or harmless or refuting Plaintiff’s assertion of prejudice. The Court finds

that Defendant has failed to meet his burden. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1),

Defendant Ruark is prohibited from calling Brett Josie as a witness.

THEREFORE:

1) Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration [146] is DENIED.

2) Plaintiff’s objection regarding witness Brett Josie is sustained.

Defendant Ruark is prohibited from calling Mr. Josie as a witness at

trial.

SO ORDERED.

Entered this 9th day of January, 2026.

s/Ronald L. Hanna

Ronald L. Hanna

United States Magistrate Judge