Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Talleyy v. Butler

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 30, 2018

DURWYN TALLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN BUTLER, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          HON. REONA J. DALY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on motions in limine filed by Plaintiff Durwyn Talley (Doc. 138) and Defendants Butler, Harner, Hill, Nagel, and Newby (Docs. 143 and 220). The Court has reviewed the motions and any responses thereto, and sets forth its rulings as follows:

         Motions in Limine filed by Defendants (Docs. 143 and 220)

         1. Defendants seek to bar Plaintiff and his witnesses from testifying at trial regarding the causation of any medical or mental health conditions. Defendants argue Plaintiff is not a physician or psychiatrist and any lay accounts proffered by him regarding the causation of any medical conditions should be barred.

         Plaintiff argues he should be able to testify about how he was affected by Defendants' misconduct and he should be allowed to testify about how his conditions of confinement affected him and his health. Plaintiff indicates he has expert testimony from Dr. Trost stating that Menard's water could have caused or worsened his GERD.

         Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff and his witnesses may testify as to their own personal experiences and observations, but they shall be prohibited from testifying as to the causation of any specific medical diagnosis. See Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 659 (7th Cir. 2004) (“no expert testimony is needed when the symptoms exhibited by the plaintiff are not beyond a layperson's grasp”). Further, Plaintiff will not be allowed to call Dr. Trost given Plaintiff's late disclosure of this witness.

         2. Defendants seek to bar Plaintiff from offering testimony or otherwise suggesting that the State of Illinois will indemnify Defendants. Plaintiff indicates that if this motion applies to insurance, he objects only if he wins and Defendants do not want to disclose their insurance company. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be barred from suggesting that the State of Illinois will indemnify Defendants.

         3. Defendants seek to bar Plaintiff from offering the inadmissible hearsay statements of any medical or mental health professionals. Defendants argue any statements made by medical professionals to Plaintiff are inadmissible hearsay and cannot be used as evidence.

         Plaintiff argues that Defendants are aware of Dr. Trost's testimony regarding the water at Menard and the effects it may have had on his chronic GERD. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED over Plaintiff's objection, unless Defendants open the door on the topic.

         4. Defendants seek to bar Plaintiff and his witnesses from testifying at trial regarding whether the defendants followed IDOC policies and procedures. Defendants argue violation of a policy does not make it more or less likely that their conduct violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights and introducing these policies would only confuse the issues in this case. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be barred from introducing testimony as to whether Defendants followed IDOC policies and procedures.

         5. Defendants seek to bar Plaintiff from offering evidence or testimony of other lawsuits involving the defendants. Defendants argue that this evidence would lead to unfair prejudice, mislead the jury, and confuse the issues.

         Plaintiff contends he should be able to ask Defendants about other lawsuits as it may be used to support the claims against them. He contends it is character evidence and would show conformity therewith.

         Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. The Court finds that the introduction of evidence of other lawsuits would be more prejudicial than probative, unless, however, Defendants open the door on the topic.

         6. Defendants seek to bar Plaintiff from offering evidence or testimony of any misconduct, reprimand, or grievance issued against Defendants. Defendants contend such evidence is irrelevant and, even if it were relevant, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.