United States District Court, N.D. New York
JAVID AFZALI, ESQ., NICHOLAS FASO, ESQ., WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA, LLP, Albany, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
MICHAEL G. McCARTIN, A.A.G., HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General for the State of New York, Albany, New York, Attorneys for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
MAE A. D'AGOSTINO, District Judge.
Plaintiff Luis Rosales is an inmate currently in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"). Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Dkt. No. 28. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), 29 U.S.C. § 794. Id.
Currently pending before the Court are the parties' motions in limine.
The specific facts of the case are set forth in the Report-Recommendation and Order dated November 2, 2012, familiarity with which is assumed. See Dkt. No. 54. The facts discussed herein will be those relevant to the claims remaining and the pending motions in limine.
In his motion in limine, Plaintiff asks the Court to preclude Defendants from introducing evidence of his prior criminal convictions at trial. See Dkt. No. 128 at 6-8. Alternatively, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants should be precluded from introducing any evidence of the names and details of Plaintiff's offenses. See id. at 8-10. Next, Plaintiff asserts that he should not be required to wear shackles or restraints at trial and that he should be permitted to wear civilian clothing. See id. at 10. Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendants should not be permitted to present expert testimony because Defendants failed to disclose their experts in compliance with Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. at 10-11.
In their motion, Defendants argue that policy publications from (1) the National Institute of Health, (2) the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation, must be admitted into evidence pursuant to Rules 803(8), 901(7) and 902(5) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Dkt. No. 118 at 24-26. Additionally, Defendants assert that they should be permitted to inquire into the "essential facts" of Plaintiff's felony conviction on cross-examination. See id. at 26-27.
A. 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 of certain forecasted evidence. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984); see also Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996). A court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. See Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. v. Novatek Med., Inc., No. 94-cv-5220, 1998 WL 665138, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1998). Courts considering a motion in limine may reserve decision until trial so that the motion is placed in the appropriate factual context. See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. L.E. Myers Co. Group, 937 F.Supp. 276, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Alternatively, the court is "free, in the exercise of sound judicial ...