Bryant v. Hartford et al
| Samuel Bryant |
| City of Hartford, Hartford Police Department, James C. Rovella, Robert Fogg, Brian Salkeld, John Doe and Jane Doe |
| 3:2017cv01374 |
| August 14, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| Victor A. Bolden |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
151
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 118 Motion in Limine; granting 119 Motion to Preclude; granting 121 Motion in Limine; denying 122 Motion in Limine; denying 123 Motion in Limine; granting 126 Motion in Limine; granting 129 Mot ion to Amend/Correct; granting 137 Motion to Preclude. For the reasons described in the attached ruling and order, Defendants Officer Fogg and Detective Salkeld's 118 Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART as to the exclusion of referenc es to Black Lives Matter and nationally publicized incidents of police misconduct, the testimony of witnesses not previously disclosed during discovery, and testimony and other evidence relating to the events on which summary judgment has been grante d, and DENIED IN PART as to testimony or other evidence on Defendants' past uses of force, disciplinary history, and prior lawsuits, without prejudice to renewal at trial.The City of Hartford's 119 Motion in Limine to exclude an y references to the remaining indemnification claim against it is GRANTED.Mr. Bryant's 121 Motion in Limine for additional peremptory challenges is GRANTED; 122 Motion in Limine to exclude his convictions that are more than ten years old is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal at trial; 123 Motion in Limine to exclude the testimony of Defendants' expert Daniel Wicks is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal at trial; and 126 Motion in Limine to excl ude previously undisclosed cell phone video footage is GRANTED. Mr. Bryant's 129 Motion to Amend/Correct the Exhibit List to include a map of certain areas of the City of Hartford is GRANTED, subject to the conditions described i n the attached ruling and order.Defendants' 137 motion to preclude the witnesses and evidence identified in Mr. Bryant's amended witness and exhibit lists is GRANTED. These additional witnesses and evidence are precluded, with the exception of information pertaining to the City of Hartford's revenue and expenditures, which is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at trial.Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/14/2022. (Lee, Diana)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 77 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 79 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons described in the attached Ruling and Order, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' mot ions for summary judgment. The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Hartford Police Department Defendants on Mr. Bryant's claim that they failed to render adequate medical assistance. The Court DENIES summary judgment as to all other claims. Regarding the excessive force claim, this case will proceed to trial against Hartford Police Department Defendants only with respect to the events that took place after the assault to which Mr. Bryant has already pled guilty under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-167c(a)(1), and after the initial use of the taser against Mr. Bryant, when he fled after the assault.Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/30/2021. (Castano, Nelson)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER denying 67 Motion for Protective Order; finding as moot 67 Motion for Order to Show Cause. The Court also ORDERS as a sanction that Mr. Bryant's counsel pay the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred by Defendants� 39; lawyers for the time spent in the deposition of Mr. Daniel Wicks, Defendants' expert witness. Within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the final judgment in this case, Defendants may submit a motion for its reasonable attorney's fees a nd costs incurred during the time spent in Mr. Wicks's deposition.At the time of trial, the Court further will consider whether to prohibit or limit Mr. Bryant's use of Mr. Wicks's deposition in the prosecution of his case, either affirmatively or in rebuttal.Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 7/2/2020. (Leon, Noel)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
