Voice of the Experienced et al v. LeBlanc et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:23-cv-01304-BAJ-EWD
Document 401 02/02/26
Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED, A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION ON
CIVIL ACTION
BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS MEMBERS, ET AL.
VERSUS
JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.
NO. 23-01304-BAJ-EWD
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court are the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Related to Incentive Pay (Doc. 129), and Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude From Trial the Testimony of Dr. Carl Keldie (Doc. 336). The Motions are opposed. (Doc. 171; Doc. 348). For the following reasons, both Motions are DENIED.
I. LEGAL STANDARDS
"It is well settled that motions in limine are disfavored." Auenson v. Lewis, 1996 WL 457258, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 1996) (citing Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Techs., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)). Moreover, Daubert motions and motions in limine are generally a waste of judicial time and resources in a bench trial. Quite simply, the "objectives" motivating such motions -i.e. juror confusion resulting from introduction of unreliable, irrelevant, misleading, or overtly prejudicial evidence - "are no longer implicated" in a bench trial, Nassri v. Inland Dredging Co., 2013 WL 256747, at *1 (M.D. La. Jan. 23, 2013) (Duval, J.) (addressing Daubert motions (citing
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

Case 3:23-cv-01304-BAJ-EWD
Document 401
02/02/26
Page 2 of 4
authorities)), because the Court is quite capable of excluding "from its consideration inappropriate evidence of whatever ilk," Rash v. Lafayette Cnty., Mississippi, 2022 WL 983645, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 30, 2022) (Biggers, J.) (addressing motions in limine (citing authorities)). "Furthermore, vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful [attention to] the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence." Nassri, 2013 WL 256747, at *1 (quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Evidence Relating to Incentive Pay
Defendants ask the Court to exclude evidence relating to the amount of incentive pay that incarcerated persons at Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) receive for their work on the Farm Line, claiming it is irrelevant and would "confuse the issues, cause undue delay, and waste time at trial." (Doc. 129-1 at 4). Plaintiffs disagree, arguing that evidence relating to incentive pay is relevant to their claim that the Farm Line violates their Eighth Amendment rights because it "contribute [s] to a set of conditions that are unconstitutionally dehumanizing and degrading". (Doc. 171 at 6).
The Court is not convinced by Defendants' argument that this evidence is not relevant or that it will waste time. Plaintiffs sufficiently explain how it may be relevant to their Eighth Amendment claim. Further, the Court is quite capable of avoiding "confusing the issues." Accordingly, Defendants' Motion (Doc. 129) is DENIED.
2

Case 3:23-cv-01304-BAJ-EWD
Document 401
02/02/26 Page 3 of 4
B. Testimony of Dr. Carl Keldie
Plaintiffs ask the Court to exclude the testimony of Dr. Carl Keldie, an expert witness proffered by Defendants, arguing that "[t]he deficiencies in Dr. Keldie's qualifications and methodology are so sweeping and fundamental as to render his opinions completely unreliable and therefore inadmissible at trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 702". (Doc. 336-1 at 1). Defendants disagree, arguing that "Dr. Keldie is qualified, his opinions are based upon reliable methodology, and his testimony is highly relevant to the issues presented in this case." (Doc. 348 at 3).
As Plaintiffs point out, the Court has previously addressed the credibility of Dr. Keldie, finding him "wholly uncredible". (Doc. 253 at 25). However, Defendants correctly note that Plaintiffs filed this Daubert motion a year beyond the deadline for dispositive motions as set out in the Court's Scheduling Order and the Court may dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion on that basis alone. (Doc. 106).
For similar reasons that the Court denies Defendants' Motion, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' - namely, because this is a bench trial. In a bench trial, "the objectives of Daubert are no longer implicated." Nassri, 2013 WL 256747, at *1. "Most of the safeguards provided for in Daubert are not as essential in a case such as this where a district judge sits as the trier of fact in place of a jury." Gibbs v. Gibbs, 210 F.3d 491, 500 (5th Cir. 2000). The Court need not gatekeep for itself. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED.
3

Case 3:23-cv-01304-BAJ-EWD Document 401 02/02/26 Page 4of4

iI. CONCLUSION
ITIS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence
Related to Incentive Pay (Doc. 129) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude From

Trial the Testimony of Dr. Carl Keldie (Doc. 336) is DENIED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this = ool f February, 2026

bra

JUDGE BRIAN A. J SON
UNITED STATES D frien COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA