United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Anderson (“Plaintiff”) has filed two motions
in limine [ECF Nos. 73, 74] seeking to preclude the
introduction of certain categories of evidence during the
upcoming jury trial in this case. Ryan Cubells
(“Defendant”) has also filed six separate motions
in limine seeking to preclude various types of
evidence from introduction at trial.
reasons outlined below, Mr. Anderson's  Motion in
Limine is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART; Mr. Anderson's  Motion in
Limine is DENIED without prejudice; Mr.
Cubells's  Motion in Limine is
GRANTED; Mr. Cubells's  Motion
in Limine is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART; and Mr. Cubells's , ,  and
 Motions in Limine are GRANTED.
The Court's ruling, however, is “subject to change
when the case unfolds, particularly if the actual testimony
differs from what was [expected].” Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Anderson originally brought this case against Martin Scanlon,
Ryan Cubells and Lee Gilbert (together
“Defendants”), alleging claims of excessive
force, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
unreasonable search and seizure under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Compl., ECF No. 1. He also brought a Monell claim
against the City of Waterbury. Id. These claims
arose from two separate encounters with Ryan Cubells, a
Police Officer with the City of Waterbury, and two of his
co-workers, Martin Scanlon and Lee Gilbert, on November 3,
2013 and December 23, 2013. Compl., ECF No. 1. During both of
these encounters, Defendants pulled over, arrested, and
searched Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Anderson claims that Mr.
Cubells used excessive force during those arrests.
summary judgment stage, the Court dismissed Mr.
Anderson's claims against the City of Waterbury and Mr.
Anderson conceded his unreasonable search and seizure claims,
leaving only Mr. Anderson's claims of excessive force and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. See
Ruling on Mot. for Summary J., ECF No. 69. Remaining for the
jury are Mr. Anderson's claim that Mr. Cubells used
excessive force against him during those two arrests, and
that Officers Scanlon and Gilbert were deliberately
indifferent to Mr. Cubells's use of excessive force, as
well as his claim that Mr. Cubells is liable for intentional
infliction of emotional distress based on his actions during
these arrests. Jury selection was held on September 5, 2017,
and jury trial is scheduled to begin on September 18, 2017.
See Minute Entry, ECF No. 98.
advance of the upcoming jury trial, Mr. Anderson seeks to
preclude the introduction of evidence related to one criminal
conviction from 2008 and three criminal convictions from
2014, as well as evidence or testimony related to the various
items found through the search of Mr. Anderson's vehicle
on November 3, 2013. Pl. Mots. in Limine, ECF Nos.
73 and 74. Mr. Cubells seeks to preclude the admission into
evidence of the following: (1) transcript excerpts from
recordings of Mr. Cubells taken by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”); (2) evidence or testimony
relating to the underlying legality of the traffic stops of
Mr. Anderson in November and December of 2013; (3) evidence
regarding Mr. Cubells's eventual termination from the
Waterbury Police Department; (4) evidence related to other
civilian complaints filed against Mr. Cubells; and (5)
evidence related to Mr. Cubells's psychiatric treatment
following the events at issue in this case. Def. Mots. in
Limine, ECF Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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,
469 U.S. at 40 n.2; Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d
136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996). “A district court's
inherent authority to manage the course of its trials
encompasses the right to rule on motions in
limine.” Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v.
Schneider, 551 F.Supp.2d 173, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
should be excluded on a motion in limine only when
the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential
grounds. Levinson v. Westport Nat'l Bank, No.
3:09-CV-1955 VLB, 2013 WL 3280013, at *3 (D. Conn. June 27,
2013). Courts considering a motion in limine may
reserve judgment until trial, so that the motion is placed in
the appropriate factual context. See Nat'l Union Fire
Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. L.E. Myers Co. Grp., 937
F.Supp. 276, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine Re: Mr.
Anderson's Criminal Convictions [ECF No. 73] and the
Fruits of the November 2013 Vehicle Search [ECF No.
Anderson seeks to preclude references to four criminal
convictions: (1) a 2008 conviction for assault in the first
degree; (2) a 2014 conviction for carrying a pistol without a
permit; (3) a 2014 conviction for possession of narcotics
with intent to sell; and (4) a 2014 conviction for violation
of probation. Pl. Mot. in Limine, ECF No. 73. With
the exception of the 2008 conviction, these convictions arose
out of Mr. Anderson's November 2013 arrest, one of the
two encounters with Mr. Cubells that form the basis of this
lawsuit. Pl. Mem. in Supp, ECF No. 73-1. In addition
to these convictions, Mr. Anderson seeks to preclude any
testimony or evidence related to the specific items found
during the search of his vehicle in November 2013 - namely, a
firearm, some marijuana, and a white crystal substance - as
well as evidence related to the criminal charges brought
against him following that search. Pl. Mem. in Supp., ECF No.
Anderson argues that this evidence is irrelevant, as the
crimes at issue do not relate to Mr. Anderson's
truthfulness and the 2008 assault conviction is particularly
remote in time. Id. Mr. Cubells argues that these
convictions and charges, as well as the items revealed in the
vehicle search, are relevant for impeachment purposes and to