Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Karsjens v. Jesson

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

February 5, 2015

Kevin Scott Karsjens, David Leroy Gamble, Jr., Kevin John DeVillion, Peter Gerard Lonergan, James Matthew Noyer, Sr., James John Rud, James Allen Barber, Craig Allen Bolte, Dennis Richard Steiner, Kaine Joseph Braun, Christopher John Thuringer, Kenny S. Daywitt, Bradley Wayne Foster, Brian K. Hausfeld, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
Lucinda Jesson, Dennis Benson, Kevin Moser, Tom Lundquist, Nancy Johnston, Jannine Hebert, and Ann Zimmerman, in their official capacities, Defendants.

aniel E. Gustafson, Esq., Karla M. Gluek, Esq., David A. Goodwin, Esq., Raina Borrelli, Esq., Lucia G. Massopust, Esq., and Eric S. Taubel, Esq., Gustafson Gluek PLLC, counsel for Plaintiffs.

Nathan A. Brennaman, Scott H. Ikeda, Adam H. Welle, and Aaron Winter, Assistant Attorneys General, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, counsel for Defendants.

ORDER

DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge.

This matter came before the Court for pretrial hearing on February 3, 2015. Consistent with, and in addition to the Court's rulings and remarks from the bench, and based upon the memoranda, pleadings, and arguments of counsel, and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby enters the following:

ORDER

1. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence Relating to any Class Member's Sexual Offenses Prior to his or her Civil Commitment or Evidence Related to any Class Member's Civil Commitment Proceeding (Doc. No. [798]) is DENIED. Such evidence is presumptively admissible subject to the Court's analysis of Article 4 and Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

2. Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting the Court to Take Judicial Notice of Documents Pertinent to this Matter (Doc. No. [803]) is DENIED under Rule 201.

However, the following evidence is presumptively admissible pursuant to the Court's Rule 702, Rule 703, Rule 807, Rule 403, and Rule 102 analysis, subject to any objections that Defendants may raise at trial: (i) the State of Minnesota's Office of the Legislative Auditor's March 2011 Evaluation Report ("OLA Report"); (ii) the MSOP Program Evaluation Team's February 2013 Report ("MPET Report"); and (iii) the Sex Offender Civil Commitment Advisory Task Force's December 2012 and December 2013 Reports ("Task Force Reports"). To the extent either party believes any of the remaining evidence referenced in Plaintiffs' motion is admissible notwithstanding the Court's ruling, the Court reserves the right to revisit the issue of the admissibility of such evidence at or before trial.

3. Defendants' Rule 702 Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dean R. Cauley (Doc. No. [777]) is DENIED. On the record before the Court, and assuming proper foundation is laid, the Court concludes that such testimony survives an Article 4 and Article 7 analysis. The Court finds that the objections raised by Defendants go to the weight to be accorded to the evidence, not to its admissibility. The Court will entertain objections, including any objections on foundation or cumulative grounds, at the time of the testimony at trial.

4. Defendants' Rule 702 Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Michael F. Caldwell (Doc. No. [779]) is DENIED. On the record before the Court, and assuming proper foundation is laid, the Court concludes that such testimony survives an Article 4 and Article 7 analysis. The Court finds that the objections raised by Defendants go to the weight to be accorded to the evidence, not to its admissibility. The Court will entertain objections, including any objections on foundation or cumulative grounds, at the time of the testimony at trial.

5. Defendants' Rule 702 Motion to Exclude Testimony of Gregory J. Van Rybroek (Doc. No. [781]) is DENIED. On the record before the Court, and assuming proper foundation is laid, the Court concludes that such testimony survives an Article 4 and Article 7 analysis. The Court finds that the objections raised by Defendants go to the weight to be accorded to the evidence, not to its admissibility. The Court will entertain objections, including any objections on foundation or cumulative grounds, at the time of the testimony at trial.

6. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Non-Classwide Issues (Doc. No. [783]) is DENIED. Assuming proper foundation is established, the Court concludes that such evidence survives an Article 4 analysis, and shall be presumptively admissible. The Court finds that such evidence, subject to any objections that Defendants may raise at trial, is relevant to the scope, nature, and extent of the alleged unconstitutionality of MSOP.

7. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Evidence Unrelated to Official-Capacity Claims (Doc. No. [785]) is DENIED. Assuming proper foundation is established, the Court finds that such evidence survives an Article 4 analysis, and shall be presumptively admissible.

8. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Evidence Related to the Sex Offender Civil Commitment Advisory Task Force (Doc. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.