United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
DANIEL P. JORDAN, III, District Judge.
This § 1983 excessive-force case is before the Court on three motions: (1) Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Proposed Expert Witness ; Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude References to Race, Nationality or Ethnicity ; and Plaintiff's Combined Motion in Limine . The Court concludes as follows:
I. Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff Seyed Rashid Jadbabaei claims that Florence Police Department officer Tracey Hughes used excessive force on him during a Terry stop. Jadbabaei sued the City of Florence, Mississippi, and Hughes in his individual and official capacity. Compl. . The City was later dismissed, but the claims against Hughes survived a Rule 56 motion.
On February 7, 2014-the deadline for Plaintiff's expert designations-Plaintiff designated Malcolm McMillin as an expert in the areas of law enforcement and criminal justice, administration, and procedure. Pl.'s Expert Designation [53-2]. That designation explained that "[d]ue to logistical issues, Sheriff McMillin and counsel have not been able to work together to finalize his report, " and no expert report was produced at that time. Id. at 1. The disclosure did "provide what the anticipatory testimony of McMillin would be." Pl.'s Resp.  at 2 ¶ 4. Over a month later, on March 27, 2014, Plaintiff served a supplemental expert designation, which included a copy of McMillin's expert report.
Following the close of discovery, Defendants moved to exclude McMillin's testimony. Defs.' Mot. . The parties thereafter filed other in limine motions that have been briefed and otherwise discussed during the pretrial conference held September 26, 2014. The Court has personal and subject-matter jurisdiction and is prepared to rule.
A. Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions
Defendants moved to exclude the opinions of Sheriff McMillin as untimely and otherwise inadequate under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Although the designation was clearly late, so was the objection. Compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(A), and L.U. Civ. R. 26(a)(2), with L.U. Civ. R. 26(a)(3). Regardless, the opinion is otherwise infirm.
McMillin's report offers the following related opinions:
There is no doubt that officer Hughes violated known, nationally recognized law enforcement standards when he struck and beat down the Plaintiff in this case.
Tracey Hughes violated well-recognized law enforcement procedures when he used excessive force under the circumstances presented. Officer Hughes interrogated Plaintiff, conducted a "Terry" pat down and then, when Plaintiff did not consent to a strip search as demanded by officer Hughes, Hughes struck Plaintiff in the face with his fist and tackled plaintiff to the ground as evidenced by the video and audio recording of the incident in question.
McMillin Report [50-1] at 4-5. Thus, he offers the bald conclusion that Officer Hughes used excessive force. See Pl.'s Resp.  at 4 ¶ 6 (describing McMillin's testimony as including his opinion "that under ...