Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

Michael T. Hayes Case No. 1:09-cv-00122-BLW Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' SECOND AND THIRD MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), et al., Defendant.

INTRODUCTION 1 Pending before the Court are the ICC Defendants' Second and Third Motions in Limine (Dkts. 185, 188). These motions were only recently filed (on February 27 and March 1, 2013) so plaintiff has not yet had a chance to respond. The Court will rule on these motions now, however, given that (1) trial is scheduled to begin on March 11, 2103; (2) most of the Court's rulings are favorable to the plaintiff; and (3) in limine rulings are provisional in any event, so the Court is open to reconsidering its rulings.

The relevant factual background is contained in the Court's February 26, 2013 ruling on defendants' first round of motions in limine. That background will not be repeated here. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

1

ANALYSIS 1. The Destruction of Surveillance Video Defendants first ask the Court to preclude testimony about a prison surveillance video that captured part of Mr. Hayes' April 2007 assault. See Defendants' Second Motion in Limine, Dkt. 185. On a related issue, defendants ask that the jury be instructed (1) to accept the "fact" that the video was "inadvertently destroyed by a third party", and (2) not to consider the absence of the video for any purpose. See Id. at 2. Defendants base this request, in large part, upon the Court's earlier refusal to issue discovery sanctions against the defendants based on the video's destruction. Specifically, in a March 3, 2011 order, the Court issued this order: The evidence suggests that Archibald turned the day room video over to the Ada County Sheriff's Office for investigation. When charges were not filed, the evidence was destroyed

Download 192.pdf

Idaho Law