Christopher v. Dakota County
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-02267
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Christopher v. Dakota County, Judge Katherine Menendez issued a pretrial order resolving most motions in limine ahead of trial, ruling on which evidence and prior convictions may be used to challenge plaintiff Tywan G. Christopher's credibility, excluding late-disclosed incident reports from the defense, and finding that a recorded jail phone call to a law firm is not protected by attorney-client privilege.
Individuals suing over alleged civil rights violations while in pretrial detention, particularly those with prior criminal histories whose credibility may be challenged at trial; litigants and attorneys handling evidence disclosure and attorney-client privilege issues in jail phone call contexts.
What happened
In Christopher v. Dakota County (Case No. 22-cv-2267), plaintiff Tywan G. Christopher is bringing a civil lawsuit against Dakota County and Sergeant Brady Ruark arising from an assault he allegedly suffered while in pretrial detention at the Dakota County Jail. The case is heading to trial, and the parties filed competing motions in limine — requests asking the judge to decide in advance what evidence can or cannot be shown to the jury.
The court resolved most of those requests. On the defendants' side, the court denied a motion to exclude evidence of Christopher's injuries (finding jurors can understand the connection to the assault without expert testimony), found a second motion moot, and allowed the defendants to question Christopher about a 2003 conviction for providing false information to police. Regarding seven prior felony charges, the court allowed some to be raised — including a 2019 assault charge for which Christopher was detained at the time of the incident — but barred the oldest convictions from 2007 and 2008. On Christopher's side, the court excluded a set of incident reports prepared by Sergeant Ruark because they were not shared with the plaintiff on time. The court also ruled that a recorded jail phone call Christopher made to a law firm after the assault is not protected by attorney-client privilege, because he was warned the call was being recorded and therefore had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Judge Katherine Menendez issued this order on September 11, 2025, memorializing rulings made at a September 10 pretrial conference. One issue remains unresolved: Christopher's motion to exclude any argument that he or the person who assaulted him should share fault for his injuries under Minnesota's comparative fault rules. The court has taken that question under advisement and will discuss it further with the parties before trial.
The detailed version
This is a pretrial order issued by United States District Judge Katherine Menendez in Christopher v. Dakota County, Case No. 22-cv-2267 (KMM/DLM), in the District of Minnesota. The order memorializes bench rulings from a September 10, 2025 pretrial conference and resolves additional issues taken under advisement.
Background
Plaintiff Tywan G. Christopher, who was in pretrial detention at the Dakota County Jail, alleges he was assaulted there. He is suing Dakota County and Sergeant Brady Ruark. The case is proceeding to trial.
Defendants' Motions in Limine
1. First Motion (Dkt. 73) — Denied in large part: Defendants sought to exclude evidence of Christopher's injuries for lack of expert testimony on causation. The court denied this motion primarily because the causal connection between the assault and the alleged injuries is straightforward enough for jurors to assess without expert help. The issue of dental injuries was left for plaintiff's counsel to clarify.
2. Second Motion (Dkt. 74) — Moot: Because plaintiff represented he would not call treating physicians as witnesses, defense counsel agreed this motion was moot.
3. Third Motion (Dkt. 75) — Granted: Under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 609(a)(2), which allows impeachment with crimes involving dishonesty regardless of age if probative value outweighs prejudice, the court allowed defendants to question Christopher about a 2003 conviction for providing false information to police. The court found it highly probative because Christopher's credibility is central to the case.
4. Fourth Motion (Dkt. 76) — Granted in part, denied in part: Under FRE 609(a)(1), which governs impeachment with felony convictions, the court addressed seven prior charges: - Excluded (denied): 2007 order-for-protection violation and 2008 controlled-substance possession — too old and too prejudicial relative to their probative value. - Admitted (granted): 2019 fifth-degree assault charge — Christopher was detained on this charge at the time of the alleged assault; jury may hear the name of the charge, that he entered an Alford plea (a plea where the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges the prosecution has sufficient evidence to convict), and that he received a 36-month consecutive sentence. - Partially admitted (granted in part): Four other 2019–2020 felony convictions — the jury may be told Christopher had four additional felony convictions that were sentenced concurrently with the 2019 assault sentence, but the names of those charges may not be disclosed. - Collateral documentary evidence of the convictions is inadmissible unless Christopher denies having the relevant criminal history. The court will give the jury a limiting instruction explaining the proper use of prior conviction evidence.
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
1. Plaintiff's Motion No. 1 (Dkt. 89) — Taken under advisement: Christopher seeks to exclude any argument that he or Dominique Malone (the person who allegedly assaulted him) bear comparative fault for Christopher's injuries under Minnesota's contributory negligence/comparative fault statutes (Minn. Stat. §§ 604.01, 604.02). Christopher argues: (a) Malone is not a party, so apportionment does not apply; (b) Minnesota law does not allow apportionment between a negligent defendant and an intentional tortfeasor; and (c) there is no evidence Christopher himself was at fault. The court has not ruled on this motion, citing a pending Minnesota Supreme Court case (Glay ex rel. McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc.) and other relevant authority. The court will discuss the matter further with the parties before trial.
2. Plaintiff's Motion No. 2 (Dkt. 90) — Granted: The court excluded Defense Exhibits 136–147, a set of twelve incident reports from the Dakota County Jail prepared by Sergeant Ruark, on the ground that they were not timely disclosed to the plaintiff during discovery. However, the ruling does not bar Sergeant Ruark from testifying about his general practices regarding protective custody requests.
Deposition Designations
The court overruled defendants' objections to designations from depositions of Dominique Malone, Donald Chandler, and Sloane McPherson. On plaintiff's objections to defense designations from Malone's deposition, the court sustained some objections (Malone Dep. 8:20–9:1), overruled others (10:12–11:1), and the parties agreed on redactions to one sentence (13:17).
Defense Exhibits 105 and 106 (Audio Recordings)
- Exhibit 105: Plaintiff's objection overruled; it is admissible. - Exhibit 106: Plaintiff's objection overruled after the court took it under advisement. Exhibit 106 is a recording of a phone call Christopher made from the jail to a law firm after the assault. Christopher argued the call was protected by attorney-client privilege because he called as a prospective client seeking legal advice, even though he never established a formal attorney-client relationship. The court rejected this argument, holding that because the jail's phone system notified Christopher the call was being recorded and he affirmatively acknowledged this before proceeding, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication. Citing United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666, 674 (8th Cir. 2003), the court found the recording device functioned as a third-party presence, destroying any privilege.
The order was signed by Judge Katherine Menendez on September 11, 2025. The order notes that if there is any conflict between this written order and the rulings stated at the conference, the conference record controls.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.