Oldenburg v. Maricopa County Correctional Health Services, et al

Filing 106

ORDER - (1) Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. 87) is denied in part and granted in part; (2) Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1 (Doc. 94) is denied as moot; (3) Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 (Doc. 95) is denied as moot; and IT I S FURTHER ORDERED: (4) setting this case for a jury trial on Monday, March 4, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in COURTROOM 606, Sixth Floor, Sandra Day OConnor United States Courthouse, 401 West WashingtonStreet, Phoenix, Arizona; COUNSEL SHALL APPEAR AT 8:30 A.M. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 12/4/12. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
11
12

Kurt Adam Oldenburg,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
vs.
City of Phoenix, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV 10-656 PHX RCB
O R D E R

17
18

On November 19, 2012, this court conducted a final pre-

19

trial conference in this matter.

20

court’s rulings and the parties’ stipulations in open court

21

as to plaintiff’s motion in limine (Doc. 87), and defendants’

22

motions in limine (Docs. 94, 95, and 96).

23

This order reflects the

As to “Plaintiff’s Motion in Liminie [sic] re:

24

Plaintiff’s Criminal History (FRE Rules 609 and 403)” (Doc.

25

87), the parties stipulated to the admissibility of the

26

eight convictions listed on page two (2) of the Defendant’s

27

Response in Opposition (Doc. 98).

28

stipulation, the court denies plaintiff’s motion in limine as

On the basis of that

1

to those eight convictions.

2

the court grants plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude

3

evidence of his prior criminal history.

4

In all other respects, however,

As to defendants’ “Motion in Limine No. 1 to Preclude

5 Plaintiff from Introducing any Evidence that Use of Force used
6 by Defendants at Apartment Complex was Inappropriate,
7 Unreasonable, Excessive or Unlawful” (Doc. 94), the parties
8 stipulated to the admissibility of evidence in accordance with
9 “Defendant’s Non-Model Jury Instruction No. 1 Lawful Use of
10 Force by Defendants at the Apartment Complex[.]” See Joint
11 Proposed Jury Instructions (Doc. 89 at 46).

The parties

12 further stipulated to the use of that instruction at trial.
13 The foregoing stipulation renders moot defendants’ Motion in
14 Limine No. 1; and thus, the court denies that motion.
15

As to defendants’ “Motion in Limine No. 2 to Preclude

16 Plaintiff from Introducing Evidence Regarding an Unknown
17 Officer Having Allegedly Stepped on His Ankles” (Doc. 95), the
18 parties stipulated that another officer, not defendants Todd
19 Oliver and Cameron Wells, was holding plaintiff’s ankles.
20 That stipulation renders moot defendants’ Motion in Limine No.
21 2; and thus, the court denies that motion.
22

As to defendants’ “Motion in Limine No. 3 to Preclude

23 Plaintiff from Introducing at Trial Photographs of his
24 Injuries Allegedly taken on May 28, 2008 and his Color Booking
25 Photograph” (Doc. 96), the withdrawal of that motion, see Doc.
26 105 (“Defendants’ Withdrawal of Motion in Limine No. 3 Doc.
27 96),” obviates the need for a ruling by this court.
28

As specified above, the court hereby ORDERS that:
-2-

1

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 87) is denied in

2 part and granted in part;
3

(2) Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 (Doc. 94) is

4 denied as moot;
5

(3) Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 (Doc. 95) is

6 denied as moot; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
7

(4) setting this case for a jury trial on Monday, March

8 4, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in COURTROOM 606, Sixth Floor, Sandra
9 Day O’Connor United States Courthouse, 401 West Washington
10 Street, Phoenix, Arizona; COUNSEL SHALL APPEAR AT 8:30 A.M.
11

DATED this 4th day of December, 2012.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Copies to counsel of record
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-