Branham v. Jordan

• Court: District Court, W.D. Kentucky
• Decided: September 21, 2022
• Docket: 3:17-cv-00117
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION

BRYAN ANTHONY BRANHAM Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-117-RGJ

SCOTT JORDAN, et al. Defendants

* * * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff Bryan Anthony Branham (“Plaintiff”) objected to testimony by Jennifer Tracy (“Tracy”). [DE 87]. Defendants Tim Forgy, Scott Jordan, and Jesse Stack’s (“Defendants”) responded [DE 95] and Plaintiff did not reply. Briefing is complete, and the matter is ripe. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Objection [DE 87]. I. LEGAL STANDARD Federal district courts have the power to exclude irrelevant, inadmissible, or prejudicial evidence in limine under their inherent authority to manage trials. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 103(c)). Yet, the “better practice” is to defer evidentiary rulings until trial unless the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). Courts favor this posture so that “questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.” Gresh v. Waste Servs. of Am., Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 702, 706 (E.D. Ky. 2010) (internal citations omitted). When this Court issues a ruling in limine, it is “no more than a preliminary, or advisory, opinion.” United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Luce, 713 F.2d 1236, 1239 (6th Cir.1983), aff’d, 469 U.S. 38 (1984)). Thus, the Court may alter or 1 amend a prior in limine ruling at trial. Luce, 713 F.2d at 1239. II. DISCUSSION Plaintiff argues that Tracy should not be allowed to testify to transfer procedures and considerations related to prisoner transfers because her testimony is not relevant. [DE 87 at 808]. In response, Defendants contend that Tracy’s testimony is relevant because she possesses personal

knowledge about Branham’s transfer. [DE 95 at 823]. Federal Rule of Evidence 701 permits a lay witness to give opinion testimony that is “(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.” Evidence is relevant if “(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Tracy is the classification branch manager who approved Branham’s transfer to the Little Sandy Correctional Complex. [DE 78 at 789]. Tracy is expected to testify about her knowledge

of Branham’s transfer and transfer procedures more generally. [Id.]. Tracy’s testimony, as a lay witness, is based on her personal knowledge of Branham’s transfer and her knowledge of prison transfer procedures. See Fed. R. Evid. 701. Her testimony is not based on “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” Id. Moreover, her testimony is likely to make a fact more or less probable because Plaintiff’s retaliation claim arises from the transfer that Tracy approved. See id. at 401. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objection [DE 87] is DENIED.

2 Il. CONCLUSION Having thus considered the parties’ filings and the applicable law, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Court ORDERS that: 1. Plaintiff's Objection [DE 87] is DENIED.

United States District Court September 20, 2022

ce: Counsel of Record