Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02343/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02343-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cheryl Allred, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.;

and Bruno Stolc, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-2343-PHX-DGC

ORDER

A Final Pretrial Conference was held on January 25, 2006. Counsel appeared on

behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant. On the basis of the parties’ writ ten submissions and the

hearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Trial in this matter shall begin on March 21, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

2. The t rial shall last six days (March 21-24, 28-29, 2006). Plaintiffs shall be

allotted 15 hours of trial time and Defendants shall be allotted 15 hours of trial time. T he

Court will keep track of each side’s time. Opening and closing statements, direct

examination, and cross-examination shall be counted against the parties’ allotted time.

3. A final conference shall be held on March 16, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. in

Courtroom 603, Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street,

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 170 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Phoenix, Arizona 85003. Out-of-state counsel may participate by telephone.

4. The parties’ proposed final pretrial order shall govern the presentation of

evidence and other trial issues. Evidence, objections, legal argument s, and relief not

requested or ident ified in the order shall not be available at trial. On or before

February 10, 2006, Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with summaries of the testimony to

be provided by medical provider witnesses at trial.

5. In response t o an issue raised in the parties’ proposed final pretrial order, the

Court ruled that Defendant Stolc is no longer in the case. The sole remaining issue in this

case – negligence – was asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint only against Defendant

Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”).

6. For reasons stated on the record, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion in

Opposition to Juror Note Taking (Doc. #155). 

7. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Phillip Esplin

(Doc. #137). The Court granted the motion with respect t o Dr. Esp lin’s opinions 2 and 4.

Witness credibility, including the credibilit y of Plaintiff, is an issue for the jury to determine

and not p roperly the subject of expert testimony. See 4 J. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger,

Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.06[1][a] (2d ed. 2005). The Court will deny the motion

with respect to Dr. Esplin’s opinions 1 and 3, but in rendering t hese op inions Dr. Esplin

should not opine on the credibility of Plaintiff. 

8. For reasons stated on the record, the Court granted Plaintiff’s M ot ion to

Strike Appendices (Doc. #154). Defendant s will not be permitted to use the exhibits to Dr.

Esplin’s testimony produced to Plaintiff on January 3, 2006. 

9. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. #138). Because the

motion includes 11 subparts, the Court will address them separately by t he paragraph

number included in Plaintiff’s motion.

a. The Court granted the motion with resp ect t o Paragraph 1. Defendant

shall not make any mention of Plaintiff having filed a motion in limine. 

b. The Court denied the motion with respect to paragraph 2 of Plaint iff’s

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 170 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

motion. The paragraph is too vague for a ruling.

c. With resp ect to paragraph 3, the Court denied the motion with respect

to Plaintiff’s conviction in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico

for conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with identification documents and

possession with intent t o use false identification documents. The Court also denied the

motion with respect to Plaintiff’s conviction for consp iracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 472.

Because these convictions concern crimes of dishonesty, the Court concluded that t hey

are admissible in evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2). The Court granted

the motion with respect to Plaint iff’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine and

conspiracy to p ossess methamphetamine. The Court concluded that the potential

prejudicial effect of these convictions outweighs their probative value and therefore

granted the motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The Court also made clear that

Defendants may introduce evidence concerning the criminal proceedings in which Plaintiff

was involved at the time of the alleged rape, including the proceedings that occurred

following the alleged rape and during which Plaintiff reported the rape. Plaintiff’s motion

was denied with respect to such proceedings. 

d. With respect to paragraph 4 of Plaint iff’s motion – evidence

concerning Plaintiff’s 1991 arrest and relat ed events – the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion

wit hout p rejudice to Defendant seeking to introduce such evidence at trial. Because the

Court cannot determine the relevancy of such evidence at this time, the motion will be

granted, Defendant should not mention these events during opening statement, and

Defendant should raise these issues with the Court out side of t he hearing of the jury if it

desires to introduce such evidence during trial.

e. With respect to paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court found

Plaintiff’s request to be too vague and therefore denied the motion.

f. With respect to paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court found

Plaintiff’s request to be too vague and therefore denied the motion.

g. With respect to paragraph 7, the Court granted the mot ion without

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 170 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

prejudice t o Defendant seeking to introduce evidence of Plaintiff’s prior drug use outside

the hearing of the jury. The Court will be better equipped to address the relevancy of this

evidence at trial.

h. With respect to paragraph 8, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion.

Defendant shall not mention the fact that Plaintiff’s case is being handled on a contingent

fee basis.

i. With resp ect to paragraph 9, the Court granted the motion without

prejudice t o Defendant’s seeking to introduce evidence at trial concerning the denial of

Plaintiff’s application for social security and unemployment benefits. The Court will be

better equipped to address the relevancy of this evidence at trial.

j. With respect to paragraph 10, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion

without prejudice to Defendant’s right to seek to introduce evidence at trial concerning

Plaintiff’s prior divorce and abort ion. The Court will be better equipped to address the

relevancy of this evidence at trial.

k. With respect to paragrap h 11 of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court ruled that

Defendant can introduce evidence of Plaintiff’s suicidal tendencies insofar as it relates t o

the manner in which Plaint iff was classified and incarcerated at Defendant’s facility on the

night in question. The Court granted the motion in limine with respect to evidence of prior

suicide attempts or information, but without prejudice to Defendant’s right to seek to

introduce such evidence at trial if it concludes that the evidence becomes relevant.

10. The Court addressed Defendant ’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of

CCA’s Post-Incident Investigation of the Alleged Rape (Doc. #142). The Court took t his

motion under advisement. The Court will deny the mot ion. T he Court concludes that

CCA’s invest igat ion into whether or not the rape occurred is relevant to a central issue at

trial – whether or not the rape occurred. The Court concludes that the potential prejudice

of this evidence does not outweigh its relevance.

11. The Court addressed Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony

of Rape Crisis Counselor (Doc. #143). The Court t ook t his motion under advisement. The

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 170 Filed 01/31/06 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

Court will deny the motion. The Court concludes that Ms. Van Wyngarden was not

required to produce an expert report because she was a treating medical provider and

therefore was not retained or specially employed to provide exp ert testimony in this case.

See F. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). The Court also concludes that Ms. Van Wyngarden’s t raining

and experience in rap e counseling qualifies her to state opinions concerning her diagnosis

of Plaintiff as suffering from PT SD and depression disorder. The Court will not exclude this

testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Defendant will, of course, be free to crossexamine Ms. Van Wyngarden concerning the basis for her diagnoses. As noted above,

the Court will also permit Dr. Esp lin to opine on the reliability of Ms. Van Wyngarden’s

diagnoses.

12. The Court addressed Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of

Prior 1999 Allegation of Fondling Incident (Doc. #144). The Court granted the motion

without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking to introduce evidence of the incident at trial. Plaintiff

must raise this issue outside the hearing of the jury. The Court will be better equipped at

trial to determine the relevancy of this evidence.

13. The Court addressed Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude

Employment/Personnel information of CCA Witnesses at Trial (Doc. #147). Because the

motion was too vague and general, it was denied.

14. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Institutional

File Information of Inmates Processed into Prison at the Same Time as Plaintiff (Doc. #146).

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court grante d t he motion. The Court concludes

that the potentially prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighs its marginal relevance. 

15. The Court addressed Defendants’ Mot ion in Limine to Exclude the CCAUnited States Marshals Service Cont ract at Trial (Doc. #145). Because Plaintiff withdrew

her opposition to this motion at the hearing, it was granted by the Court.

16. The Court directed the parties to re-submit dep osition designations at the

hearing on March 16, 2006. The parties noted that they will seek to streamline deposition

presentations in light of t he Court’s time limits for the trial. The Court encouraged the

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 170 Filed 01/31/06 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

parties to consider stipulating to summaries of testimony from particular witnesses. 

17. The Court advised the parties that the trial date may get pre-empted by a

pending criminal case. If it does, this case most likely will be assigned to a visiting judge

for trial.

18. The Court provided the parties with the Court’s Proposed Preliminary Jury

Instructions and Voir Dire dated January 25, 2006. T hese proposed instructions and voir

dire will be discussed at the hearing to be held on March 16, 2006. 

DATED this 31st day of January, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 170 Filed 01/31/06 Page 6 of 6