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. (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 institutional files for thirty-four (34) inmates who were on the same transport bus as Plaintiff and/or were processed into CCA's Central Arizona Detention Center at the same time as Plaintiff 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 dispute that the alleged rape occurred. NO. CIV 03-2343 PHX-DGC DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE INSTITUTIONAL FILE INFORMATION OF INMATES PROCESSED INTO PRISON AT THE SAME TIME AS PLAINTIFF

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC

Document 146

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 1 of 4

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. There is no dispute that Plaintiff has yet to identify her alleged attacker(s). There is also no dispute that Plaintiff alleges she was raped by inmates who were prison workers and specifically who were handing out food trays in R&D to inmates, as opposed to any of the inmates who were transported to the facility at the same time or processed into the Central Arizona Detention Center at the same time as Plaintiff. II. ARGUMENT Defendants anticipate that at trial, Plaintiff will offer the institutional files and institutional information regarding 34 other inmates who were processed into CADC's R&D Unit near the same time as Plaintiff or were transported to prison with Plaintiff. Institutional information related to these other inmates, which includes

booking photographs, classification information, property information, release information and booking information is not relevant and therefore should be precluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. Plaintiff has never identified any of the 34 inmates who were processed into the facility near the same time as she was, as her attackers. To the contrary, Plaintiff maintains that it was an inmate worker or workers who were delivering food trays who were the one(s) who raped her, as opposed to any inmates who were also being processed into the facility near the same time as Plaintiff. Accordingly, any

institutional information related to these other inmates 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

2 Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 146 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 2 of 4

rape, "more probable or less probable that it would be without the evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Even if relevant, such evidence should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403. The only purpose to admit institutional information regarding these inmates who unequivocally were not Plaintiff's alleged attackers would be to mislead and confuse the jury. In addition, admission of such evidence would result only in a substantial waste of time and delay of the trial. As such, only prejudice to Defendants will result. Accordingly, this Court should exclude at trial, evidence of institutional information of these inmates. III. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request this Court enter an Order in Limine to preclude Plaintiff from offering institutional evidence regarding inmates Plaintiff has already conceded did not allegedly rape her. DATED this 4th day of January, 2006. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

By s/ Daniel P. Struck Rachel Love Halvorson 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

3 Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 146 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 3 of 4

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 146 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 4 of 4