ROGERS v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC
1:19-cv-03722
S.D. Ind.Oct 18, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Steve Rogers, an incarcerated individual, alleges Wexford of Indiana, LLC and Dr. Paul A. Talbot were deliberately indifferent to his hernia treatment.
- Defendants moved in limine seeking pretrial rulings on seven categories of evidence (Dkt. 193); Rogers opposed portions of the motion.
- The court applies the high in limine standard: exclude only if evidence is clearly inadmissible; otherwise defer to trial context (broad judicial discretion).
- Monell liability requires Rogers to show harm arising from a Wexford policy, practice, or custom—so evidence beyond his individual treatment may be relevant.
- The Court granted unopposed requests (¶¶ 1, 5, 6), partially granted/denied other requests with tailoring to prevent unfair prejudice or hearsay concerns, and imposed procedure for presenting prior-lawsuit evidence at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence of liability insurance; previously undisclosed evidence; affidavits in lieu of live testimony (¶¶1,5,6) | No opposition to exclusion of insurance, undisclosed evidence, and affidavits | Move to exclude these categories | Granted (unopposed) |
| Evidence of other lawsuits (¶2) | Such evidence may show Wexford-wide policy/practice for Monell proof | Prior lawsuits are prejudicial, confusing, and should be barred | Denied generally; granted only insofar as Rogers must request a bench conference and allow narrower objections outside jury presence before presenting prior-suit evidence |
| Testimony recounting statements by other medical providers (¶3) | Some provider statements may be admissions by Wexford agents and thus not hearsay | Such testimony is hearsay and should be excluded | Denied: statements by Wexford agents/employees within scope may be admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D) |
| Lay opinions on causation/diagnosis/treatment (¶4) | Rogers does not oppose barring non-expert medical opinions | Defendants seek to bar non-expert medical opinions | Granted: non-experts may not offer medical causation/diagnosis opinions; Rogers may testify about his symptoms and how they changed with/without treatment |
| Evidence of incarceration (¶7) | Rogers opposes irrelevant or prejudicial details about convictions/sentences | Defendants seek to show Rogers was treated while incarcerated | Granted in part: Defendants may show Rogers was incarcerated and treated for the hernias while incarcerated; evidence about crimes, sentence length, or duration of acquaintance is excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2002) (district court discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (motions in limine only exclude evidence clearly inadmissible)
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984) (court may alter in limine rulings at trial)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal/organizational liability requires policy/custom showing)
- Daniels v. Cook County, 833 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2016) (Monell requires evidence beyond a plaintiff's isolated experience)