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. Defendants Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") and Warden Stolc hereby request this Court to issue an Order in Limine to preclude the introduction of the CCA-United States Marshals Service (USMS) Contract for correctional services 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. Defendants assert that the alleged rape did not occur. 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 assert a breach of contract claim. Moreover, Defendants stipulate that they had a common law duty to act reasonably to prevent foreseeable risks of harm to inmates, including inmate upon inmate sexual assault. NO. CIV 03-2343 PHX-DGC DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE CCAUNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE CONTRACT AT TRIAL (Oral Argument Requested)

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC

Document 145

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 1 of 4

II.

ARGUMENT Defendants anticipate that at trial, Plaintiff will offer evidence of the

CCA-USMS contract for correctional services under which Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Central Arizona Detention Center. The Contract addresses all facets of

operation of the facility in detail. Contractual obligations regarding inmate medical care, infectious diseases, physical plant maintenance, fire prevention, sanitation, interior furnishings, waste disposal, searches, food service, property control, insurance coverage and contractual dispute resolution, just to name a few, have no bearing on whether Plaintiff was indeed raped and whether Defendants were negligent in failing to prevent the alleged sexual assault. Nor is the financial information, including

calculation of daily rates for inmates, relevant to whether Defendants were negligent. This is especially so where this Court has previously granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's punitive damages claim. See Order dated 8/30/05. Financial information related to CCA's contract with the USMS is in no way relevant to Plaintiff's remaining negligence claim. See Larriva v. Montiel, 143 Ariz. 23, 691 P.2d 735 (App. 1984) (holding that allegation that defendants' acts were intentional, reckless or wanton was insufficient to make a prima facie showing of liability for punitive damages so as to entitled plaintiffs to discovery of defendant's financial condition). This Court must preclude Plaintiff from offering the CCA-USMS contract into evidence at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. The terms of the Contract have "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,

2 Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 145 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 2 of 4

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. This is especially so with respect to financial information contained in the Contract. Because Plaintiff's punitive damages claim has already been dismissed, admitting the Contract which sets forth detailed financial information serves only to inflame the jury and distract the jury's attention to the only issues at hand - whether Plaintiff was raped and whether Defendants are at fault for the alleged rape, if it occurred. Therefore, the only reason for Plaintiff to offer the Contract at trial is to inflame the jury, distract them from the simple negligence issue at hand and prejudice Defendants. III. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request this Court enter an Order in Limine to preclude Plaintiff from offering the CCA-USM S Contract for correctional services into evidence. 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 145 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 145 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 4 of 4