Rodriguez v. County of Stanislaus, et al.

Filing 400

ORDER GRANTING Defendants National Railroad Passenger Corporation's, BNSF Railway Company's, and State of California, Department of Transportation's 224 Motion in Limine No. 3 to Limit the Testimony of Charles Culver, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 12/9/2010. (Gaumnitz, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP B. CLYDE HUTCHINSON, State Bar No. 037526 bch@llcllp.com VINCENT CASTILLO, State Bar No. 209298 vcastillo@llcllp.com JASON B. SHANE, State Bar No. 253908 jshane@llcllp.com LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP Lake Merritt Plaza 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600 Oakland, CA 94612-3541 Telephone: (510) 433-2600 Facsimile: (510) 433-2699 Attorneys for Defendants NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (erroneously sued herein as AMTRAK CALIFORNIA), BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY (erroneously sued herein as BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION 10 Lake Merritt Plaza 1999 Harrison Street, Su i t e 2600 Oakland, CA 94612 - 3 5 4 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LUCIO CORRAL RODRIGUEZ, individually and as Successor in Interest to the decedents, MARICRUZ CORRAL, IVAN ALEXANDER CORRAL, and LUCIO ANTHONY CORRAL, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CITY OF MODESTO; CITY OF RIVERBANK; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AMTRAK CALIFORNIA; BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY; and DOES 1 to 200, Defendants. AND ALL RELATED ACTIONS. Case No. 1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION'S, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY'S, AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF CHARLES CULVER The Motion In Limine of Defendants National Railroad Passenger Corporation, BNSF Railway Company, and State of California, (hereinafter "NRPC, BNSF and California") to Limit 13249-36853 VC 592171.1 1 Case No. 1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA ORDER GRANTING DEFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP the Testimony of Charles Culver came on regularly for hearing on December 1, 2010, in Department 3 of the above-captioned Court. Plaintiff Lucio Corral Rodriguez was represented by Aaron Markowitz, Esq. Defendants NRPC, BNSF and California were represented by Clyde Hutchinson and Vincent Castillo. The County of Stanislaus was represented by Dan Farrar. Having considered the moving papers, any opposition filed, and following oral argument, IT IS SO ORDERED: Defendants' Motion is granted as follows: 1. Mr. Culver shall not offer any opinions, testify, or present evidence regarding the Amtrak engineer's state of mind, including what the engineer knew or did not know. 2. Mr. Culver shall not offer any opinions or testify regarding whether the accident 10 Lake Merritt Plaza 1999 Harrison Street, Su i t e 2600 Oakland, CA 94612 - 3 5 4 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 was preventable or avoidable. 3. Mr. Culver may not offer opinions, testify, or present evidence that the Amtrak engineer showed a "disregard" for the general public on the date of the accident. 4. Mr. Culver shall not offer any opinions, testify, or present evidence as to what decedent Maricruz Corral "would have done" had she had additional time. In addition, Mr. Culver is barred from opining, testifying, or presenting evidence of decedent Maricruz Corral's state of mind. 5. Plaintiff is barred from making reference in the selection of a jury, presentation of evidence, reference to evidence, testimony, or closing argument of the matters precluded above. This does not bar Mr. Culver from evaluating physical or other admissible evidence as Long as he does not opine based on speculation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: DEAC_Signature-END: December 9, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE emm0d64h 13249-36853 VC 592171.1 2 Case No. 1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA ORDER GRANTING DEFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?