Anderson v. May et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
DOTTIE ANDERSON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	No. 4:23-cv-747-DPM
BOBBY MAY, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Sheriff of St. Francis
County
ORDER
DEFENDANT
The 	parties 	have 	filed 	motions 	m 	limine. 	Here 	are 	the
Court's rulings.
1. Anderson's Motions
1.1 	Anderson's Work History
Partly granted and partly denied. 	The parties have presented no
evidence 	or 	argument 	that 	Anderson's 	work 	history factored 	into
May's decision to fire her. 	So in general this evidence isn't relevant,
and risks confusing the issues. 	Fed. R. Evid. 401 & 403. 	But it may be
admissible for impeachment. Fed. R. Evid. 608 & 609. And Anderson's
familiarity with grievance procedures (without getting into any details
about discipline or grievances involving other employers) is relevant.
Case 4:23-cv-00747-DPM Document 102 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 9

1.2 	ADC Records and Voice Stress Analyzer
Partly granted and partly denied. 	With authentication, and if
May lays the proper foundation, Arkansas Department of Corrections'
records are likely records of a regularly conducted activity. 	Fed. R.
Evid. 803(6). 	And 	May 	can 	use 	them 	for 	non-hearsay 	purposes.
Fed. R. Evid. 801. 	But all these records, of course, must only be used
when relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 401.
Voice stress tests are inadmissible in Arkansas courts. Ark. Code
Ann . § 12-12-704. 	Admitting these results risks confusing the issues
and prejudicing the jury. 	Fed. R. Evid. 403. 	Anderson's request to
exclude evidence about the stress test is granted.
1.3 	Detainee Complaints
Partly granted and partly denied. 	Detainee grievances are not
records of regularly conducted activity. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). 	But the
grievances, or parts of them, may be used for non -hearsay purposes.
Fed. R. Evid. 801.
1.4 	Anderson's Personnel File
Denied, for the same reasons and with the same limitations as the
ADC records addressed in paragraph 1.2.
-2-
Case 4:23-cv-00747-DPM Document 102 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 9

1.5 	Undisclosed Witnesses
Partly granted 	and 	partly denied. 	Granted as to voice stress
expert testimony. 	Paragraph 1.2. 	Granted as unopposed for Judge
Jones. 	Granted 	as 	unopposed 	for 	detainees 	who 	filed 	grievances
against 	Anderson. 	But 	denied 	as 	to 	Kim 	Lawson-Loveless.
May 	properly 	disclosed 	her. 	E.g., 	Doc. 	73 -5 	at 	4 	& 	73-6 	at 	8.
She can testify.
1.6 	Harm to Detainees
Granted 	with 	directions. 	The 	Court 	previously 	decided 	that
complaints from non-employees about St. Francis County Detention
Center 	were 	irrelevant 	to 	Anderson's 	claims, 	so 	they 	weren't
discoverable. 	Doc. 50 at 2. 	It wouldn't be fair to let either side get into
them now. 	But counsel can question witnesses about their personal
knowledge of jail conditions and inmate harm. Fed. R. Evid. 602.
2. 	May's Motions
2.1 	Undisclosed Witnesses
Denied with a caveat. In 2024, May himself identified Massey and
Price 	during 	discovery. 	No 	surprise 	or 	unfair 	prejudice 	exists.
They may testify. 	Of course if Anderson (or May) offers witnesses or
-3-
Case 4:23-cv-00747-DPM Document 102 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 9

documents that should have been disclosed in discovery but weren't,
and the other party can show prejudice, the Court will almost certainly
exclude them.
2.2 	Undisclosed Evidence
Denied with a caveat, for the same reasons as paragraph 2.1.
See 2.7, infra, on Terry and Eaves materials and related testimony.
All of that is excluded for different reasons.
2.3 	Undisclosed Damages
Denied with a caveat for 	Anderson's 	wage loss 	and 	benefits.
Doc. 97 at 4-5. Anderson can testify about the information she provided
May, but no other wage/benefit losses.
Denied as to Anderson's testimony about emotional damages.
These damages are difficult to quantify, and not amenable to a Rule
26 calculation. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; 	See, e.g., Doc. 151 at 8-9 in Hooks v.
Saltgrass Arkansas, Inc., No. 4:21-cv-841-KGB (E.D. Ark. 12 May 2024);
Williams v. Trader Publishing Co., 218 F.3d 481, 486 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000).
2.4 	Medical Causation Testimony
Denied. 	"A compensatory damage award for emotional distress
may be based on a plaintiff's own testimony." 	Bennett v. Riceland Foods,
Inc., 	721 	F.3d 546, 552 (8th Cir. 	2013). 	Her 	significant other, 	her
daughter, and her long-time friend may also testify about what they
-4-
Case 4:23-cv-00747-DPM Document 102 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 9

saw and experienced about how the firing affected Anderson. 	Fed. R.
Evid. 701.
2.5 	Front Pay and Reinstatement
Granted as unopposed for front pay. 	Granted, too, for equitable
relief with a caveat. This is for the Court to decide, as Anderson notes.
E.g., Gibson v. Mohawk Rubber Co., 695 F.2d 1093, 1100 (8th Cir. 1982);
Newhouse 	v. 	McCormick 	& 	Co., 	110 F.3d 	635, 	642 	(8th 	Cir. 	1997).
The Court will hear whatever Anderson wants to offer about equitable
relief outside the jury's presence. 	The Court will also consider the
record as a whole.
2.6 	Fringe Benefits
Granted as unopposed.
2.7 	Irrelevant and Prejudicial Evidence
Partly 	granted 	and 	partly 	denied. 	Granted 	for 	Perry 	Eaves.
Evidence about his death is inadmissible. 	Eaves wasn't a detainee in
the jail during Anderson's tenure. This evidence is marginally relevant.
More importantly, it risks confusing the issues plus unfair prejudice
based on his death. Fed. R. Evid. 401 & 403.
Granted 	for 	Tianna 	Terry, 	too. 	Anderson 	never 	saw 	or
complained about any mistreatment of her. Doc. 62-1 at 6; Fed. R. Evid.
401 & 403.
-5-
Case 4:23-cv-00747-DPM Document 102 Filed 12/02/25 Page 5 of 9

Denied 	for 	the 	rest 	of 	May's 	concerns 	about 	Anderson's
complaints with a caveat. She can testify to events within her personal
knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 602. 	If Anderson strays from what she knew
about, May can object.
Denied for Massey and Price. The Court has already decided that
evidence about other employees' terminations is relevant. 	Doc. 50 at 1.
The particulars of Massey's termination can be ventilated on cross
examination. 	Those facts go to weight, not admissibility. 	And Price
can testify to what she experienced working as a jailer at the same time
as Anderson .
The motion to exclude Anderson's photographs is denied. 	But if
she can't lay a foundation for any particular image, the Court won't
admit it.
2.8 	Legal Conclusions and Speculation
Granted with a caveat. 	Lay witnesses may not testify to legal
conclusions. 	Hogan v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 812 F.2d 409,
411 (8th Cir. 1987). Because one of the remaining legal issues is whether
Anderson was retaliated against, she may not testify about whether
there was or was not retaliation. 	And she can testify about what she
saw, 	heard, 	perceived, experienced 	and 	believed; 	but 	she 	can't
speculate. Fed. R. Evid. 602 & 701. Given her good-faith-belief burden,
-6-
Case 4:23-cv-00747-DPM Document 102 Filed 12/02/25 Page 6 of 9

Anderson is entitled to some leeway here. 	May can explore the "why"
and the "how" on cross.
2.9 	Parties' Financial Conditions
Partly granted and partly denied. 	To the extent May's motion is
unopposed, 	it's granted. 	To the extent the parties disagree on the
characterization of this case as "one involving an individual against an
elected 	official 	and 	the 	government," 	the 	motion 	is 	denied.
Anderson must stick to the facts, and not risk a verdict affected by
sympathy or class-related feelings. 	Fed. R. Evid. 403. 	She's correct
about the nature of the case.
2.10 	Dismissed Claims
Granted as unopposed. 	Applies to all parties.
2.11 	Witnesses Who Aren't Present
Granted. 	No party can argue that the other party's failure to call
a 	witness 	should 	allow 	the 	jury 	to 	draw 	an 	adverse 	inference.
United States v. Cook, 771 F.2d 378, 382-83 (8th Cir. 1985).
2.12 	Motions and Orders
Granted as unopposed. 	Applies to all parties.
-7-
Case 4:23-cv-00747-DPM Document 102 Filed 12/02/25 Page 7 of 9

2.13 	Retaliation Against Other Employees
Denied without prejudice, for the reasons in paragraph 2.7.
2.14 	Pursuit of Justice
Granted as unopposed. 	Applies to all parties.
2.15 	"Golden Rule"
Granted as unopposed. 	Applies to all parties.
2.16 	"Victim" Terminology
Partly granted and partly denied. 	Referring to Anderson as a
"victim" during testimony is argumentative and risks unfair prejudice.
Fed. R. Evid. 403. But of course Anderson's counsel may use this term,
or any similar term, in closing. It's argument.
2.17 	"Punitive" Terminology
Granted as to May. The Court will address the punitive damages
issues as to Jones in due course.
*
The parties' motions in limine, 	Doc. 	85 	& 86, are granted and
denied as specified.
-8-
Case 4:23-cv-00747-DPM Document 102 Filed 12/02/25 Page 8 of 9

So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
-9-
Case 4:23-cv-00747-DPM Document 102 Filed 12/02/25 Page 9 of 9