United States District Court, M.D. Florida
Christina Bobbin, in her capacity as Plenary Guardian of Carlo Daniel Laudadio, an incapacitated adult, Plaintiff,
Corizon Health, Inc., formerly known as Prison Health Services, Inc.; Janice Stepnoski, L.C.S.W.; Walter Carl Morris, R.N.; and Janet Joan Memoli, R.N.; Defendants.
A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
matter is before the Court on the parties' Motions in
Limine. This case is on the Court's February 2017 trial
calendar (Docket No. 275).
Prior Federal Cases Involving Defendants
ask the Court to preclude Plaintiff from mentioning two
previous cases brought against Corizon's predecessor,
Prison Health Services, complaining of treatment of inmates
at the Lee County Jail. Defendants acknowledge that to
succeed on her § 1983 claims against Corizon, Plaintiff
must establish a policy, custom, or practice that amounts to
deliberate indifference. According to Defendants, the two
prior cases at issue are too dissimilar from the facts of
this case to be relevant, and the admission of evidence
regarding these cases will be unduly prejudicial.
is no doubt that the facts of the prior cases, and
specifically the Christie matter over which this
Court presided, are egregious and show Corizon in a very
negative light. Rule 403 does not prohibit any negative
evidence, however, but only evidence that is unduly
prejudicial or evidence whose prejudicial effect
substantially outweighs its probative value.
the facts of the two prior cases are not identical to the
instant matter, there are parallels between Christie
and this case that make the facts of Christie
potentially relevant to Plaintiff's claim of an
unconstitutional policy or practice here.
Court is not as familiar with the facts of the
Fields matter. Plaintiff contends that it is
relevant because it included a punitive damage award against
Corizon for failure to provide medical care. The Court is
reluctant to allow a jury to hear evidence regarding the
imposition of punitive damages in a different matter. Such
evidence has the potential to be unduly prejudicial,
especially in a case involving facts very different from
Court will allow Plaintiff to discuss the Christie
matter with the jury, subject to any objections Defendants
may make during the trial. The Court will exclude mention of
Fields at this time, subject to an offer of proof as
to Fields's relevance to the issues before the
Character Evidence and Comparative Fault
asks the Court to preclude Defendants from presenting
evidence regarding Laudadio's character-former crimes,
his wife's accusations that he abused her, and the like.
Defendants respond that they will not introduce any such
evidence unless it becomes relevant to do so, and at that
time will discuss the issue with the Court outside the
presence of the jury. The Motion is therefore denied as moot,
but without prejudice to the parties' ability to raise
this issue should the evidence warrant it.
also seeks to exclude comparative-fault evidence. Defendants
claim that the comparative fault of other individuals is
relevant and admissible. But as the Court recently
determined, Defendants did not establish a basis on which to
amend their Answer to include the comparative fault of
dismissed Defendants. (Docket No. 294.) Any mention of the
supposed negligence of these Defendants is likely to confuse
the conduct of the dismissed Defendants or other individuals
may become relevant, however, the Court will grant this
portion of the Motion without prejudice to further argument
during trial. If the evidence becomes relevant, Defendants
should, of course, present argument regarding its admission
outside the presence of the jury.
Past Suicide Attempts
asks the Court to preclude Defendants from arguing that
Laudadio's suicide attempt was not genuine, and that he
only attempted suicide to manipulate staff at the jail.
Plaintiffs also seek to exclude mention of Laudadio's
prior suicide attempts in support of any argument that
Laudadio did not ...