Oldenburg v. Maricopa County Correctional Health Services, et al

Filing 110

ORDER - Accordingly, the court DENIES "Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Denial of their Motions in limine No. 1 and 2 as Moot" (Doc. 109) at 1:12-14 (emphasis omitted). Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 1/10/13. (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

Plaintiff,
vs.

15 City of Phoenix, et al.
16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV 10-0656-PHX-RCB
O R D E R

17
18

Currently pending before the court is defendants’ motion

19 for reconsideration (Doc. 109).

Defendants are seeking

20 reconsideration of two aspects of this court’s order
21 pertaining to various motions in limine (Doc. 106).

Finding

22 that the parties’ stipulations rendered each motion moot, this
23 court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motions in limine
24 (“MIL”) nos. 1 and 2.
25

See Ord. (Doc. 106) at 2:4-21.

In seeking reconsideration, defendants contend that “the

26 Court committed clear error and its decision was manifestly
27 unjust[.]” Mot. (Doc. 109) at 4:7.
28

Believing that the agreed

1

upon stipulation is insufficient,1 defendants are moving this

2

court to reconsider and grant MIL no. 1 “so that it is clear

3

to Plaintiff that he cannot testify or present other evidence

4

that Defendants used inappropriate, unreasonable, excessive

5

or unlawful force against him at the apartment complex.”

6

at 5:6-8.

7

to defendants’ motion in limine no. 2 is insufficient,2

8

defendants are moving this court to reconsider and grant MIL

9

no. 2 “so that it is clear to Plaintiff that he cannot

Id.

Similarly, also believing that the stipulation as

10

testify or present other evidence that he was injured as a

11

result of an unknown officer standing on or holding his

12

ankles at the Desert Horizon Precinct or that such alleged

13

force was excessive.”

14

Id. at 6:3-6.

The court understands defendants’ concern, echoed by

15
16

1

17

The parties stipulated to the following:
On May 20, 2008, Plaintiff Kurt Oldenburg
was lawfully arrested by Defendant Todd Oliver at
an apartment complex that was under construction.
In response to Plaintiffs’ resistance to Officer
Oliver’s efforts to place Plaintiff under arrest,
Officer Oliver used a leg sweep and employed the
carotid control technique. Officer Oliver also
secured handcuffs on Plaintiff’s wrists. Officer
Oliver and Officer Wells also used a Ripp restraint
to secure Plaintiff’s ankles. All of these actions by
Officer Todd Oliver and Officer Cameron Wells were
lawful. Plaintiff cannot recover damages for any
injuries he received as a result of any of the actions
taken by Officer Oliver and/or Officer Wells at the
apartment complex.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25 Defs.’ Proposed Jury Instructions (Doc. 89) at 46 (“Defendants’ Non-Model
Jury Instruction No. 1 Lawful Use of Force by Defendants at the Apartment

26 Complex” (emphasis omitted)).
27
28

2

The parties stipulated that another officer, not either of the
defendants, was holding plaintiff’s ankles trying to restrain his legs
while plaintiff was at the Desert Horizon Precinct. Audio Tr. (Nov. 19,
2012) at 11:16:34 a.m. - 11:16:59 a.m.

-2-

1

plaintiff’s own counsel during the November 19, 2012, final

2

pretrial conference, with confining not just plaintiff, but

3

all witnesses, to testimony and evidence which is consistent

4

with the prior ruling of partial summary judgment in this

5

case.

6

through the stipulations set forth herein, coupled with the

7

court’s directions during the final pretrial conference.

8

example, the court directed the parties to raise the issue

9

early on as to the stipulation regarding MIL no. 1.

10

Tr. (Nov. 19, 2012) at 11:00:35 a.m. - 11:00:42 a.m.

11

similar vein, as to MIL no. 2, the court reminded the parties

12

to raise that issue before plaintiff or any other witness

13

inadvertently testifies contrary to or inconsistent with that

14

stipulation.

15

the court discerns no practical difference between denying

16

MIL nos. 1 and 2 as moot, as the court did, or granting them,

17

as defendants are now seeking.

18

not met their burden of persuading the court that its prior

19

rulings on MIL nos. 1 and 2 resulted in “manifest error[.]”

20

See LRCiv 7.2(g)(1).

21

In the court’s view, however, that can be accomplished

Id. at 11:16:59 a.m. - 11:17:16 a.m.

For

Audio
In a

Thus,

Consequently, defendants have

Accordingly, the court DENIES “Defendants’ Motion for

22

Reconsideration of the Court’s Denial of their Motions in

23

limine No. 1 and 2 as Moot” (Doc. 109) at 1:12-14 (emphasis

24

omitted).

25

DATED this 10th day of January, 2013.

26
27
28
-3-

1

Copies to counsel of record

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-