Scoma v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | 16-CV-6693 (KAM)(SJB) |
| Parties | JOHN SCOMA Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff John Scoma brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleged eighteen claims, alleging that defendant police officers (together with defendant the City of New York, "defendants") violated his constitutional rights, through the use of excessive force to arrest him on September 19, 2015. (See ECF No. 44, Second Amended Complaint.) Trial is scheduled to begin on May 10, 2021. (See ECF No. 95, Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order.) By memorandum and order dated January 22, 2021, the court granted partial summary judgment to defendants regarding the use of excessive force as to Officer Francisco Allende's use of a taser, the municipal liability claim, state assault and battery claims regarding Officer Allende's use of a taser, and plaintiff's state constitutional claims. See Scoma v. City of New York, No. 16-cv-6693 (KAM) (SJB), 2021 WL 230295 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2021). The remaining claims for excessive force under § 1983 and state assault and battery relate to the officers' application of handcuffs and their conduct immediately after the handcuffs were applied. Plaintiff has not identified the officers involved in his remaining excessive force claims, other than Officer Matthew Brander. The court assumes the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts of the instant case.
Pending before the court are the parties' respective motions in limine to preclude certain evidence from being admitted at trial. (See ECF No. 96, Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine ("Def. Mem."); ECF No. 100, Plaintiff's Opposition ("Pl. Opp."); ECF No. 98, Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine ("Pl. Mem."); ECF No. 101, Defendants' Opposition ("Def. Opp."); ECF No. 119, Defendants' Notice of Objections ("Def. Obj.").) For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted in part and denied part. The court also rules on the parties' respective objections to the trial exhibits below, but reserves decision for the Final Pretrial Conference and trial as to some of the objections.
"The purpose of an in limine motion is 'to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issuesthat are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.'" Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 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). Further, a district court's ruling on a motion in limine is preliminary and "subject to change when the case unfolds." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984).
The admissibility of evidence at trial is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence (the "Rules"). Federal Rule of Evidence 402 ("Rule 402") provides that all relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, Act of Congress, or applicable rule. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Federal Rule of Evidence 401 defines relevant evidence as that which "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence," so long as "the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. The Second Circuit has characterized the relevance threshold as "very low." See United States v. White, 692 F.3d 235, 246 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 176 (2d Cir. 2008)). To be relevant, evidence need not prove a fact in issue by itself, but only have "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to thedetermination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 440 (1990) (quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 345 (1985)).
Relevant evidence in an excessive force case concerns "whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." Bryant v. City of New York, 404 F.3d 128, 136 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation mark omitted). According to the Supreme Court, the relevant factors for a jury to consider in determining whether force by the police was excessive include: (1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) whether the plaintiff posed an immediate threat to the safety of the defendants; (3) and whether the plaintiff actively resisted arrest or attempted to evade arrest by flight. Outlaw v. City of Hartford, 884 F.3d 351, 366 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)). This determination requires the jury to look to the totality of the circumstances. Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416, 425 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Rogoz v. City of Hartford, 796 F.3d 236, 246 (2d Cir. 2015). "The 'reasonableness' of the amount of force used thus 'must be judged from the perspective of a reasonableofficer on the scene . . . at the moment' the force is used." Rogoz, 796 F.3d at 246-47 (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396).
In addition to the relevance of the evidence that the parties seek to offer or exclude in their motions, several other Rules bear on the court's determination of admissibility. Evidence that is otherwise admissible under the Rules is generally subject to the probative-prejudice balancing analysis provided in Federal Rule of Evidence 403 ("Rule 403"). Rule 403 permits the exclusion of relevant evidence, "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, [or] misleading the jury." Fed. R. Evid. 403. District courts wield broad discretion in making decisions under this probative-prejudice balancing test. See Fiacco v. City of Rensselaer, N.Y., 783 F.2d 319, 327-28 (2d Cir. 1986); see also United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 131 (2d Cir. 2010) () "In making a Rule 403 determination, courts should ask whether the evidence's proper value 'is more than matched by [the possibility] . . . that it will divert the jury from the facts which should control their verdict.'" Bensen v. Am. Ultramar Ltd., No. 92-cv-4420,1996 WL 422262, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 1996) (quoting United States v. Krulewitch, 145 F.2d 76, 80 (2d Cir. 1944)). The court applies the foregoing analysis to the parties' pending motions and objections.
The operative claims in this case have been substantially narrowed following this court's decision granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Scoma v. City of New York, No. 16-cv-6693 (KAM) (SJB), 2021 WL 230295 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2021). Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed several other claims originally pled in the second amended complaint. (See ECF No. 75.) Accordingly, as confirmed by the parties at a May 3, 2021 status conference, all that remains to be tried is plaintiff's claim that excessive force was used in the moments after plaintiff was tased and as he moved or was moved from the interior stairwell to be handcuffed on September 19, 2015.
Plaintiff's Motions:
In the instant motions, plaintiff moves to preclude defendants from introducing: (i) evidence or testimony regarding information made known to police before defendant Brander used the allegedly excessive force; (ii) testimony by Officers Fernando Caches, Argely Delacruz, Francisco Allende, as well as plaintiff's neighbor Christina Cosares as prejudicial andirrelevant; (iii) evidence or testimony regarding prior lawsuits brought by plaintiff; (iv) evidence related to certain medical records unrelated to plaintiff's left elbow; (v) certain evidence concerning plaintiff's physique, workout regimen, and medical steroid use; (vi) evidence of plaintiff's prior arrest and conviction history; and (vii) pleadings and other litigation documents filed by plaintiff in this action. (See generally Pl. Mem.)
Defendants' Motions:
Defendants move to preclude: (i) evidence of disciplinary histories and prior lawsuits against defendant officers; (ii) suggestions by plaintiff to the jury for a specific dollar amount to be awarded as damages; (iii) any charge to the jury regarding punitive damages; (v) evidence relating to the employment or indemnification of the defendant officers by New York City, including references to defense counsel as "City attorneys." (See generally Def. Mem.)
Trial Exhibits:
Plaintiff objects to the admission of some of defendants' exhibits under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and to documentary evidence from plaintiff's prior civil actions and the litigation documents in this case. Defendants oppose the introduction of certain medical records due to a lack of proper foundation and authentication. (See ECF No. 119, Def. Obj.)The court now addresses the parties' motions in limine and objections in turn.
As an initial matter, the court will address plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss several named defendants. Plaintiff initially sought to dismiss his claims against defendants Azeem Chatha, Fernando Caches, Damir Vukic, Argely Delacruz, Francisco Allende, Spencer Craven, and Gregory Mannino pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) without prejudice. (Pl. Mem. at 2-3.) Defendants agree that certain officers should be dismissed, but argue that any dismissal should be with prejudice because it would be inherently unjust for plaintiff to...
To continue reading
Request your trial