Jones

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JEROME JONES CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. NO. 24-00363-BAJ-SDJ

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion In Limine to Suppress Testimony

and Evidence (Doc. 45, the “Motion”). The Motion is opposed (Doc. 48), and

Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 67). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs Motion is

GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, AND DEFERRED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sergeant

Joseph Davis (“Defendant”) subjected him to unnecessary and excessive force at the

Louisiana State Penitentiary on October 19, 2022. (Doc. 1-2 § 17).

Plaintiff now moves, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 104 and 403, to

exclude eight categories of evidence that Defendants may introduce at trial:

(1) Plaintiffs pre-incident medical records (Defense Exhibit 1); (2) the entire certified

Administrative Remedy Procedure file (Defense Exhibit 2); (8) the Unusual

Occurrence Report dated October 19, 2022 (Defense Exhibit 3); (4) disciplinary

reports from other incidents;! (5) any reference to the criminal record or convictions

1 The Court assumes Plaintiff is referring to disciplinary reports from other incidents that

involve Plaintiff.

of Plaintiff or of any inmate witness; (6) conduct reports from other incidents;2 (7) and

Plaintiffs master prison record.? (Doc. 45 at 1-2). Plaintiff further seeks to bar

Master Sergeant Jaquan McDonald, an LSP officer who may have been within the

vicinity of the altercation, from testifying at trial. (Id. at 2).4

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“It is well settled that motions in limine are disfavored.” Auenson v. Lewis,

1996 WL 457258, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 1996) (citing Hawthorne Partners v.

AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)). “Motions in limine

are frequently made in the abstract and in anticipation of some hypothetical

circumstance that may not develop at trial.” Collins v. Wayne Corp., 621 F.2d 777,

784 (5th Cir. 1980) (superseded on other grounds). “An order in limine excludes only

clearly inadmissible evidence; therefore, evidence should not be excluded before trial

unless it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Rivera v. Robinson,

464 F. Supp. 3d 847, 853 (E.D. La. 2020) (quoting Auenson, 1996 WL 457258, at *1)

(emphasis added). Instead, courts should reserve evidentiary rulings until trial so

2 The Court assumes that Plaintiff is referring to conduct reports detailing prior incidents

that involve Plaintiff and other inmates.

3 Plaintiff does not identify the specific reports encompassed by items (4) and (6) within his

Motion, nor provide record citations to them, and his accompanying memorandum offers no

clarification. To the extent Plaintiff refers to the disciplinary board list contained within the

certified ARP file, that list reflects prior incidents between Plaintiff and other inmates. (See

Doc. 45-3 at 34-86).

‘The categories of evidence that Plaintiff seeks to exclude in his Motion (Doc. 45) do not match

the categories of evidence that Plaintiff seeks to exclude in his accompanying memorandum

(Doc. 45-2 at 1-2) and proposed order (Doc. 45-1). Plaintiffs accompanying memorandum

goes beyond the Motion itself by seeking to exclude the Disciplinary Report dated October 19,

2022 (Defense Exhibit 4). Plaintiffs accompanying proposed order, however, only seeks to

exclude the entire ARP file, the UOR dated October 19, 2022, and testimony from McDonald.

that questions as to the evidence “may be resolved in the proper context.” Awenson,

1996 WL 457258, at *1. However, “[d]enial of a motion in limine does not mean all

evidence contemplated by the motion will be automatically admitted. Rather, denial

means that the court cannot determine in advance whether the evidence should be

excluded.” Id.

Federal Rule of Evidence 401 instructs that evidence 1s relevant if “it has any

tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”

and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” FED. R. EVID. 401. Federal

Rule of Evidence 402 states that, as a general matter, relevant evidence is admissible.

FED. R. EVID. 402. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 authorizes courts to “exclude relevant

evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more

of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue

delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” FED. R. EVID.

403.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Uncontested Evidentiary Categories.

Plaintiff first seeks exclusion of five categories of evidence that Defendants

represent they will not offer at trial: Plaintiffs pre-incident medical records, UORs

from other incidents, disciplinary and conduct reports from other incidents,

references to the criminal record or convictions of Plaintiff or of any inmate witness,

and his master prison record. Plaintiffs own Motion recites Defendants’

representations that they do not intend, or do not presently anticipate, offering these

categories of evidence, subject to narrow reservations, principally concerning

potential impeachment. (Doc. 45 at 1-2). Defendants confirm those representations

in their opposition. (Doc. 48 at 2). The Court credits Defendants’ representations and

therefore DENIES the Motion with respect to these categories of evidence AS

MOOT.

These rulings are without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to object at trial should

Defendants offer such evidence. Any use of prior convictions for impeachment

purposes will be governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 609, and the Court will rule

on such matters if and when they arise at trial.

B. October 19, 2022 UOR and October 19, 2022 Disciplinary Report.

Plaintiff's next attempts to exclude the October 19, 2022 UOR and perhaps the

October 19, 2022 Disciplinary Report.5 (Doc. 45-2 at 2).

With respect to the October 19, 2022 UOR, courts have often concluded that

UORs prepared by named-Defendant prison security officers do not fit within the

hearsay exception because they may be untrustworthy. See Lafleur v. Knight,

No. 15-640-SDD-RLB, 2018 WL 3240963, at *1 (M.D. La. July 3, 2018) (excluding an

LSP UOR as hearsay “without prejudice to the Defendants’ urging an appropriate

exception to the rule against hearsay, if any, at the time of trial.”); see also Fobbs v.

Davis, No. 3:11-CV-00700, 2015 WL 3682375, at *2 (M.D. La. June 12, 2015)

5 Plaintiffs Motion makes it difficult to discern which categories of evidence Plaintiff seeks

to exclude, given the unclear subheading “Disciplinary Reports from other incidents Unusual

Occurrence Reports - Def Ex 3[,]” where Defense Exhibit 3 is the October 19, 2022 UOR. To

the extent Plaintiff seeks exclusion of disciplinary reports concerning unrelated incidents,

Defendants represent that they will offer none. (Doc. 48 at 2-3). Therefore, that portion of

the Motion is denied as moot.

(excluding a UOR where the proponent “points to no exception to the hearsay rule

that might make [it] admissible”). That reasoning applies here: the UOR is authored

by Defendant Davis and Lieutenant Michael Karisny. (Doc. 45-3 at 138-16, 26-29).

“After a party properly objects to the admission of evidence as hearsay, the proponent

of the evidence bears the burden to show that the statement is not offered as hearsay

or falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.” Chevron TCI, Inc. v.

Capitol House Hotel Manager, LLC, 541 F. Supp. 3d 687, 692 (M.D. La. 2021).

Defendants neither confirm that the statement is not offered as hearsay, nor do they

provide a presently applicable exception for the UOR. Instead, they observe that

Plaintiff fails to consider “the possibility that the report may be used as a recorded

recollection to refresh a witness’ memory” given the nearly four years between the

incident and trial. (Doc. 48 at 2-3). That possibility does not require a different

result. The use of writing to refresh a witness’ recollection does not entail the

admission of the writing into evidence. See FED. R. EVID. 612. Additionally, recorded

recollection under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(5) requires a foundation that can be

laid only at trial; even then, the record “may be read into evidence but may be received

as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.” FED. R. EVID. 803(5). Both avenues

remain fully available to Defendants if the Court grants this Motion with respect to

the UOR.

With respect to the October 19, 2022 Disciplinary Report (Defense Exhibit 4),

it is not clear whether Plaintiff seeks to exclude this document. Plaintiff's Motion,

memorandum accompanying the Motion, and proposed order accompanying the

Motion identify the UOR arising from this incident (Defense Exhibit 3) as an exhibit

Plaintiff seeks to exclude. (Doc. 45 at 1; Doc. 45-2 at 2; Doc. 45-1). However, neither

Plaintiffs Motion nor his accompanying proposed order seek to exclude the October

19, 2022 Disciplinary Report.® Accordingly, the Court will DEFER ruling on the

Motion with respect to the October 19, 2022 Disciplinary Report until trial.

Consistent with the decisions of this Court addressing materially identical

reports, the Motion is GRANTED with respect to the October 19, 2022 UOR without

prejudice to Defendants’ urging an appropriate exception to the rule against hearsay,

if any, at the time of trial. The authors of the reports may, of course, testify at trial.

See McCadney v. Hamilton, No. 18-824-JWD-RLB, 2015 WL 39388470, at *8

(M.D. La. June 26, 2015) (excluding a UOR while permitting its author to “testify as

to his observations and as to any admissions made by the Plaintiff’); Johnson v. Cain,

No. 09-0454-BAJ-CN, 2011 WL 2437608, at *2 (M.D. La. June 17, 2011) (the report’s

author “may certainly testify as to what he personally observed” on the date in

question “as to what he was told by the plaintiff (as non-hearsay admissions by a

5 As noted previously, the categories of evidence that Plaintiff seeks to exclude in his Motion

(Doc. 45) do not match the categories of evidence that Plaintiff seeks to exclude in his

accompanying memorandum (Doc. 45-2 at 1-2) and proposed order (Doc. 45-1). Plaintiff's

accompanying memorandum seeks to exclude the disciplinary report dated October 19, 2022

(Defense Exhibit 4), but his Motion (Doc. 45) and his accompanying proposed order (Doc. 45-

1) do not.

Plaintiff's memorandum also does not clarify whether he seeks to exclude the October 19,

2022 Disciplinary Report. Plaintiff discusses the “disciplinary charges and disciplinary report

concerning the events” and “the disciplinary report and the disposition of any disciplinary

charges” under the subheading entitled “Disciplinary Reports from other incidents Unusual

Occurrence Reports - Def Ex 3[,]” (emphasis added) (where Defense Exhibit 3 is the October

19, 2022 UOR), with no reference to the Disciplinary Report exhibit (Defense Exhibit 4) in

this section. Defendants’ Opposition indicates that they were unaware that Plaintiff had

briefed the issues of the October 19, 2022 Disciplinary Report in his Motion. See Doc. 48 at 2.

party-opponent)” and “as to matters within his personal knowledge.”).

C. ARP No. LSP-2022-2131.

The Administrative Remedy Procedure, or ARP, is the Louisiana Department

of Public Safety and Corrections’ internal grievance process for inmate complaints.

The certified ARP file at issue, No. LSP-2022-2131, contains, amongst other things,

Plaintiffs handwritten grievance; the First and Second Step responses denying relief

to Plaintiff; Plaintiff's medical records from the day of the incident; the October 19,

2022 UOR; the October 19, 2022 Disciplinary Report; and other institutional records.

(See Doc. 45-3).

Plaintiff summarily argues, in a single paragraph and without citation to any

rule or authority, that the certified ARP file is “a collection of documents each of which

constitute inadmissible hearsay and there is no exception to the hearsay rule that

will allow them to be entered into evidence.” (Doc. 45-2 at 5). Defendants respond that

portions of the file consist of Plaintiffs own handwriting, admissible against him as

statements of a party opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2); that other

portions, including medical records, may fall within recognized exceptions such as

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4), which exempts statements made for, and reasonably

pertinent to, medical diagnosis or treatment; and that Plaintiff himself lists portions

of the same file among his own trial exhibits, implicating the rule of completeness

embodied in Federal Rule of Evidence 106, under which a party’s introduction of part

of a statement permits an adverse party to introduce any other part of the statement

that, in fairness, ought to be considered at trial. (Doc. 48 at 3-4).

The certified ARP file is a compilation of documents of differing authorship,

character, and purpose. The admissibility of any given document within it will turn

on the identity of the proponent, the purpose for which the document is offered, and

the foundation laid at trial. Indeed, both sides apparently propose to offer portions of

the same file. (Doc. 48 at 3; Doc. 44 at 6). Defendants’ invocation of Rule 106 means

that the admissibility of any given portion may depend on which party offers which

portion, for what purpose, and in what order. A blanket pretrial ruling precluding

admission of the entire ARP is not prudent at this time. See Granger v. Babin, No.

12-628-JJB-SCR, 2014 WL 4211309, at *38 (M.D. La. Aug. 25, 2014) (“The

admissibility of plaintiffs Administrative Remedy Procedure is deferred until trial.”).

Accordingly, the Motion with respect to the ARP is DEFERRED until trial. Counsel

shall raise any objection to a particular document within the file at the time it is

offered, outside the presence of the jury if necessary. This deferral does not permit

the introduction of any material otherwise excluded by this Ruling and Order.

D. The Testimony of Master Sergeant Jaquan McDonald.

Finally, Plaintiff seeks to bar McDonald from testifying at trial, arguing that

McDonald’s December 14, 2022 witness statement submitted in connection with the

incident at issue “nowhere indicates he saw anything or has personal knowledge.”

(Doc. 45-2 at 5). A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced

sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.

FED. R. EVID. 602. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s

own testimony. Id.

The Parties read McDonald’s witness statement differently. Under Plaintiffs

reading, the statement’s silence as to how McDonald came to know what he recounts

shows that McDonald “is not a witness.” (Doc. 45 at 2; Doc. 45-2 at 5). Under

Defendants’ reading, the statement describing the encounter between Plaintiff and

Defendant makes it at least possible that McDonald observed the events he describes.

(Doc. 45-5 at 1; Doc. 48 at 4). The statement does not make clear whether McDonald

was or was not an eyewitness to the encounter. This is precisely the sort of

foundational question that Rule 602 commits to trial, where the foundation may be

laid through the witness’s own testimony and tested on cross-examination. See

Poullard v. Firestone Grp., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02732, 2014 WL 4660693, at *5—6

(W.D. La. Sept. 17, 2014) (enforcing Rule 602’s foundation requirement while

declining to issue a “blanket ruling” prohibiting a witness’s testimony in advance of

trial). Excluding a witness altogether, before investigating whether he had personal

knowledge of the event at issue, would invert that framework. Plaintiff has not shown

that McDonald’s testimony is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds, and his

request to exclude McDonald is therefore DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiffs

right to object at trial.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion (Doc. 45) is GRANTED IN PART,

DENIED IN PART, AND DEFERRED IN PART, as follows:

The Motion is GRANTED as to the Unusual Occurrence Report dated

October 19, 2022, without prejudice to Defendants’ urging an appropriate exception

to the rule against hearsay, if any, at the time of trial. The authors of the reports may

testify as to their personal observations, as to statements made by Plaintiff, and as

to matters within their personal knowledge; furthermore, nothing in this Ruling and

Order precludes the use of a writing to refresh a witness’s recollection in accordance

with Federal Rule of Evidence 612.

The Motion is DENIED AS MOOT as to Plaintiffs pre-incident medical

records; disciplinary and conduct reports from other incidents; references to the

criminal record or convictions of Plaintiff or of any inmate witness; and Plaintiffs

master prison record, without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to object at trial should

such evidence be offered.

The Motion is DENIED as to the request to exclude the testimony of Master

Sergeant Jaquan McDonald, without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to object at trial.

The Motion is DEFERRED until trial as to the admissibility of the certified

ARP file No. LSP-2022-2131 and the Disciplinary Report dated October 19, 2022;

however, this deferral does not permit the introduction, through the ARP, of any

material otherwise excluded by this Ruling and Order.

th

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this g day of July, 2026

(2a,

JUDGE BRIAN A CKSON

UNITED STATESISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

10