Opinion
9:19-cv-362 (AMN/ML)
11-03-2023
TRACY YVONNE COOPER, as Administrator of The Estate of TERRY L. COOPER, JR. Plaintiff, v. PATRICK M. CLANCY, STEVEN W. WOOD, KOLBY M. DUFFINA, Defendants.
BELDOCK, LEVINE & HOFFMAN JONATHAN C. MOORE, ESQ. DAVID B. RANKIN, ESQ. REGINA POWERS, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff HAMILTON CLARKE, LLP JOSHUA S. MOSKOVITZ, ESQ. ADAM I. STRYCHALUK, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK JORGE A. RODRIGUEZ, ESQ. AMANDA K. KURYLUK, ESQ. NICHOLAS W. DORANDO, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants Assistant Attorneys General
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:
BELDOCK, LEVINE & HOFFMAN JONATHAN C. MOORE, ESQ.
DAVID B. RANKIN, ESQ.
REGINA POWERS, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
HAMILTON CLARKE, LLP JOSHUA S. MOSKOVITZ, ESQ.
ADAM I. STRYCHALUK, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JORGE A. RODRIGUEZ, ESQ.
AMANDA K. KURYLUK, ESQ.
NICHOLAS W. DORANDO, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants Assistant Attorneys General
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff Tracy Yvonne Cooper (“Plaintiff”), as Administrator of the Estate of Terry L. Cooper, Jr. (“Mr. Cooper”), commenced this action against defendants Correction Officer Patrick M. Clancy (“Clancy”), Correction Officer Steven W. Wood (“Wood”), and Correction Officer Kolby M. Duffina (collectively the “Defendants”), alleging Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure to intervene claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a civil rights conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 52.
Trial is scheduled to commence on November 6, 2023. Dkt. No. 153. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's motions in limine, Dkt. No. 179, Plaintiff's motion to exclude trial witnesses, Dkt. No. 182, Defendants' motions in limine, Dkt. No. 169, Defendants' response to Plaintiff's motions in limine, Dkt. No. 185, Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motions in limine, Dkt. No. 184, and Defendants' response to Plaintiff's motion to exclude trial witnesses, Dkt. No. 190.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion to exclude trial witnesses, Dkt. No. 182, is denied, Plaintiff's motions in limine, Dkt. No. 179, are granted in part, denied in part, and reserved in part, and Defendants' motions in limine, Dkt. No. 169, are granted in part, denied in part, and reserved in part.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984); Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. L.E. Myers Co., 937 F.Supp. 276, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” United States v. Paredes, 176 F.Supp.2d 179, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citation omitted). “[C]ourts considering a motion in limine may reserve decision until trial, so that the motion is placed in the appropriate factual context.” Jean-Laurent v. Hennessy, 840 F.Supp.2d 529, 536 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 937 F.Supp. at 287). Further, a district court's ruling on a motion in limine is preliminary and “subject to change when the case unfolds.” Luce, 469 U.S. at 41. The moving party bears the burden of establishing that evidence is inadmissible for any purpose and so properly excluded on a motion in limine. See United States v. Pugh, 162 F.Supp.3d 97, 101 (E.D.N.Y. 2016).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Trial Witnesses
Plaintiff seeks to exclude the following witnesses from testifying at trial pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Michael Sikirica, M.D. (“Dr. Sikirica”), the pathologist who performed the autopsy of Mr. Cooper; Michael Lonergan (“Lonergan”), author of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) Office of Special Investigations (“OSI”) Report concerning the death of Mr. Cooper; and Rebecca Finn (“Finn”), the author of the New York State Police (“NYSP”) Investigation Report concerning the death of Mr. Cooper, on the grounds that Defendants did not previously disclose such witnesses in their disclosures pursuant to Rule 26 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 182-1.