WRIGHT v. JONES et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CARLTON WRIGHT, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:23-cv-00459-TWP-MKK
)
SHANE NELSON, 	)
KRUL Lieutenant, 	)
GARD Captain, 	)
LEE Sergeant, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE
This matter is before the Court on a belated Motion in limine filed by Defendants on
February 13, 2026. (Dkt. 125). Defendants seek to preclude admission of many of Plaintiff's
proposed exhibits. For the reasons explained below the motion is denied.
First, according to the Final Pretrial Conference Order, motions in limine were due January
7, 2026. (Dkt. 105). Defendants' motion, filed more than five weeks later, is too late. Next, motions
in limine "perform[] a gatekeeping function and permit[] the trial judge to eliminate from further
consideration evidentiary submissions that clearly ought not be presented to the jury because they
clearly would be inadmissible for any purpose." Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Fam. Servs., 115
F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). Because this is a bench trial, motions in limine are not necessary to
prevent prejudicial evidence from being shown to the jury. See City of Joliet v. Mid-City Nat. Bank
of Chi., No. 05 C 6746, 2012 WL 5463792, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2012) (denying
a motion in limine because "Rule 403's concerns carry significantly less weigh in a bench trial,
where there is a presumption that the court is not improperly influenced by the evidence brought
before it"). In addition, "[t]he movant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is
Case 1:23-cv-00459-TWP-MKK Document 126 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

inadmissible on any relevant ground, for any purpose." Stewart v. Jackson, 2021 WL 1660976, at
*1 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 28, 2021) (internal quotation omitted). Defendants seek to exclude evidence
they contend is not properly authenticated, hearsay evidence, and "evidence lacking personal
knowledge."
Next, as explained on the record, each request fails on the merits. It appears from the
motion that the witnesses may be able to authenticate or demonstrate personal knowledge of many
of the exhibits Defendants seek to exclude. Before Plaintiff seeks to admit the documents at issue
and demonstrates the purpose for their admission, the Court cannot determine whether they are
properly authenticated, contain inadmissible hearsay, or that any particular witness lacks personal
knowledge of those documents.
For the reasons explained above, the Motion In Limine, Dkt. [125], is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 2/17/2026
Distribution:
CARLTON WRIGHT
208902
WESTVILLE - CF
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5501 South 1100 West
WESTVILLE, IN 46391
Joseph Thomas Lipps
BBFCS ATTORNEYS
jlipps@bbfcslaw.com
________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Case 1:23-cv-00459-TWP-MKK Document 126 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>