Jimenez v. Butler, et al

Filing 81

ORDER re Plaintiff's Motions in Limine, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/31/09. (Verduzco, M)

1 2 3 4

KEVIN G. LITTLE, NO. 149818
A T T O R N E Y AT LAW

6083 N. Figarden Drive, No. 188 Fresno, California 93722 Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Attorney for Plaintiff Adam Jimenez

5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This matter came on for hearing on March 30, 2009 on plaintiff's motions in limine. After considering the parties' pleadings and argument, the Court hereby rules as follows: 1. The plaintiff's motion to exclude any evidence or witnesses not timely disclosed ADAM JIMENEZ, Plaintiff, vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICER L. BUTLER, ETC., Defendants. Case No. CIV-F-06-1075 OWW SMS ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

during discovery is granted and applies equally to all parties, with one exception as indicated below. The defense belatedly named Aaron Rohner as a non-retained expert. While the Court does not find good cause to permit Mr. Rohner to testify as an expert, it will permit him to be called as a percipient witness. Thus, Mr. Rohner may be entitled to testify as to matters within his personal knowledge but may not render opinions on any issue in this case. Plaintiff reserves the right to make other appropriate objections to Mr. Rohner's testimony as the case develops.

1 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

2.

The plaintiff's motion to exclude evidence of (1) any unrelated personnel actions

taken against him as a peace officer, (2) any evidence suggesting that he has ever used alcohol, and (3) any evidence that the defendant officers have no prior complaints against them in their official capacities is granted. 3. The plaintiff's motion to exclude the result of the CHP's internal affairs

investigation into the underlying incident as evidence is granted. 4. The plaintiff's motion to preclude the defendants from justifying his detention and

arrest on the basis of any information other than that known to them at the time is granted with one exception, as indicated below. Blood-alcohol content tests taken by the plaintiff within one day of his arrest may be admitted, if presented as otherwise competent evidence. 5. Plaintiff's motion to exclude the defendants from presenting lay or expert

opinions on legal issues is granted, and the Court's ruling on this motion applies equally to all parties. 6. Plaintiff's motion to exclude any lay or expert testimony that purports to opine

as to the credibility of any witness or party is granted, and this ruling also applies to all parties equally. 7. The plaintiff's motion to exclude any mention of any item that was withheld by

the defense on the basis of privilege is granted. This ruling also applies to all parties equally. 8. The plaintiff's motion to exclude any tangential evidence that might be introduced

to demonstrate bias is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2009 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-