Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Daniel P. Struck, Bar #012377 Rachel Love Halvorson, Bar #019881 J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone No.: (602) 263-1700 Facsimile No.: (602) 263-1784 E-Mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Corrections Corporation of America and Stolc IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Cheryl Allred Plaintiff, v. Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.; Bruno Stolc Defendants. NO. CIV 03-2343 PHX-DGC DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EMPLOYMENT/PERSONNEL INFORMATION OF CCA WITNESSES AT TRIAL (Oral Argument Requested)

Defendants Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") and Warden Stolc hereby request this Court to issue an Order in Limine to preclude the introduction of numerous CCA employees' personnel files at trial pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges she was raped by male inmates at CCA's Central Arizona Detention Center while being housed in a shower cell in the facility's Receiving and Discharge Unit. Plaintiff alleges that she was housed in the shower cell with several other male detainees, who were restrained, and who watched while she was raped by the worker inmates. There is no dispute that Plaintiff did not notify any CCA personnel that the alleged rape had occurred. Defendants assert that the alleged rape did not occur. Plaintiff was housed on isolation status during her stay at CADC, having been "red flagged" by the

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC

Document 147

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 1 of 4

United States M arshals Service prior to her arrival as requiring isolation because of a history of suicide attempts. Because of the small confines of the shower cells in the R&D unit, the shower cell could not have held Plaintiff, her two to three (or more depending on the report) attackers, a chair and three to four restrained inmates sitting on a bench watching. In addition, male and female inmates are never housed in the same cell, and worker inmates who are under constant supervision of R&D officers are not permitted access to female inmates. Finally, the Intake Desk and the Transportation Office are located directly across from the shower cells within a few feet of the shower cells, and numerous R&D and Transportation officers are present in and roving the R&D Unit during the processing of inmates. Therefore, not only would Plaintiff not have been housed in a shower cell with other male inmates, a rape could not have gone undetected by the numerous officers working R&D within a few feet of the shower cell.

The only issues left to be decided at trial are whether Plaintiff was raped and if so, whether Defendants were negligent in failing to protect Plaintiff from inmate upon inmate sexual assault. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants failed to properly train or supervise their employees, resulting in harm. Rather, Plaintiff simply argues that Defendants were negligent in permitting male inmates to have access to Plaintiff and opportunity to rape her. II. ARGUMENT Defendants anticipate that at trial, Plaintiff will offer evidence of information contained in CCA employees' personnel files, including those of employees Frank Garcia, Barbara Quiroz, Richardo Figueroa, Amy Padilla and John Mills. Plaintiff's Complaint does not set forth a failure to train or failure to supervise (employees) claim against Defendants. Therefore, the discipline and performance of

2 Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 147 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 2 of 4

CCA employees is not at issue. There is also no evidence here that Defendants knew (or should have known) that the above referenced employees were deficient in their ability to supervise the safety of inmates and were derelict in their duties. Moreover, none of these employees have been counseled, disciplined or terminated for actions involving Plaintiff or actions involving failure to protect inmate safety. This Court must preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence from CCA employees' personnel files at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402. These employees were not disciplined or otherwise counseled for any conduct relating to Plaintiff or to the protection of inmates from rape or sexual assault. Therefore, job performance, disciplinary and other personnel related evidence for CCA employees "has no tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence" to the determination as to whether: (1) Plaintiff was raped; and (2) Defendants were negligent in failing to prevent the alleged rape, "more probable or less probable that it would be without the evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Moreover, even if relevant, such evidence should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because the probative value of such evidence is outweighed by the danger of confusing or misleading the jury and also would result in undue delay and waste of time where nothing in these employees' personnel files relates to failure to protect inmates from inmate sexual assault and nothing pertains to these employee's contact with Plaintiff. III. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request this Court enter an Order in Limine to preclude Plaintiff from admitting employment/ personnel files and related information of CCA employees at trial. //// ////

3 Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 147 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 3 of 4

DATED this 4th day of January, 2006. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

By s/ Daniel P. Struck 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants Corrections Correction of America and Stolc Original of the foregoing e-filed with the Court and a copy e-served this 4th day of January 2006, to Leon Schydlower, Esq L AW O FFICE O F L EON S CHYDLOWER 210 North Campbell Street El Paso, Texas 79901 Brett Duke, Esq. L AW O FFICES OF B RETT D UKE 5970 Silver Springs Suite 700 El Paso, Texas 79912 Attorneys for Plaintiff Cheryl Allred s/Francine Gatto

4 Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 147 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 4 of 4