Johnson v. Wexford Health Source Inc. et al, No. 1:2017cv03213 - Document 137 (N.D. Ill. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Pretrial conference held on March 12, 2021. The Court heard arguments on the parties' motions in limine. The motions are granted in part, denied in part, and reserved in part as set forth below. The Court's rulings are without prejudice unless otherwise noted. Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 3/12/2021. Mailed notice. (ym, )

Download PDF
Johnson v. Wexford Health Source Inc. et al Doc. 137 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Mark Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Wexford Health Source Inc., Estate of Dr. Saleh Obaisi, Deceased, and Lataina Williams, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 17-cv-03213 Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pretrial conference held on March 12, 2021. The Court heard arguments on the parties’ motions in limine. The motions are granted in part, denied in part, and reserved in part as set forth below. The Court’s rulings are without prejudice unless otherwise noted. Statement Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 1 to bar defendants from referencing plaintiff’s prior convictions and criminal history [117] is granted over objection except for proper use regarding credibility issues to be determined at trial. Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 2 to bar defendants from referencing plaintiff’s Illinois Department of Corrections disciplinary history, commissary account, and grievances history unrelated to the allegation of deliberate indifference [118] is granted in part and denied in part. The Court will allow evidence regarding plaintiff’s grievances history from the relevant timeframe of June 1, 2016, through December 31, 2017. However, defendants are prohibited from referencing plaintiff’s Illinois Department of Corrections disciplinary history and commissary account that are unrelated to the allegation of deliberate indifference and outside of the relevant timeframe. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1 to bar plaintiff from referencing other lawsuits, complaints, depositions, grievances, and disciplinary actions brought against defendants [119] is granted without objection. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 2 to bar plaintiff from presenting evidence or making any arguments or claims for recovery of any pain, suffering, disability, discomfort, or any other damages that occurred outside of the timeframe during which the plaintiff may have been under the care of the defendants [120] is granted over objection. The Court limits the relevant timeframe to June 1, 2016, through December 31, 2017. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 3 to bar plaintiff from testifying as an expert regarding his medical condition, including on causation, diagnosis, and appropriate treatment [121] is granted over objection as explained on the record. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 4 to bar plaintiff from testifying or introducing evidence that Defendants did not follow policies or procedures by Wexford Health Sources, Inc., or the Illinois Department of Corrections [122] is reserved for trial. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 5 to bar plaintiff from introducing evidence or arguments indicating that the legal standard of his § 1983 claim is anything other than deliberate indifference [123] is granted without objection. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 6 to bar plaintiff from introducing previously undisclosed or improperly disclosed evidence, testimony or otherwise, from any lay or expert witness [124] is granted without objection, and the motion is reciprocal. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 7 to bar plaintiff from introducing previously undisclosed or improperly disclosed physical, tangible, or documentary evidence [125] is granted without objection, and the motion is reciprocal. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 3/12/2021 Entered: _____________________________ SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.