Rodriguez v. County of Stanislaus, et al.

Filing 524

MOTIONS IN LIMINE ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on January 18, 2012. (Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
LUCIO CORRAL RODRIGUEZ,

CASE NO. CV F 08-0856

12
Plaintiff,
13
14

MOTIONS IN LIMINE ORDER
(Docs. 497, 498, 499, 500, 501.)

vs.
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION,

15
Defendant.
16
/
17
18

This Court conducted a January 18, 2012 hearing on the parties’ respective motions in limine.

19

Plaintiff Lucio Corral Rodridguez (“plaintiff”) appeared by counsel Joshua Markowitz. Defendant

20

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“defendant”) appeared by counsel B. Clyde Hutchinson and

21

Vincent Castillo. This Court issues the following rulings on the parties’ motions in limine and

22

incorporates its reasons stated on record during the hearing.

23

Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 8 To Enforce Prior In Limine Orders: This Court will not

24

revisit the motions in limine decided at the first trial, and rulings on the motions will remain effective.

25

Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 9 To Exclude Untimely Disclosed Matters And

26

Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 24 To Add Witnesses And Exhibits: Based on the parties’

27

agreement, Sharyn Seitz, defendant’s Assistant Vice President for Financial Planning, may testify, and

28

defendants may attempt to introduce pertinent documents at the second punitive damages monetary
1

1

award phase, if that phase is necessary. This Court PRECLUDES defendant to introduce further

2

untimely disclosed evidence, including testimony of Stephen Strachan and Jonathan Hines.

3

Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 22 To Exclude Traffic Engineering, Warning Activation

4

And Related Matters: This Court will permit evidence to describe the subject railroad crossing and

5

intersection, including measurements and design, and to explain circumstances surrounding the subject

6

collision. This Court EXCLUDES as speculation expert opinion as to what Engineer Cone knew about

7

the danger of the subject railroad crossing and intersection and actions of vehicle drivers which might

8

provide notice to a train engineer.

9

Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 23 To Preclude Distracting Or Disruptive Conduct: This

10

Court will tolerate no game playing and ADMONISHES the parties and counsel to act professionally

11

at all times in and out of the presence of the jury.

12
13

Stipulation As To Jury Findings And Causation: This Court will accept the parties’
stipulation as to prior jury findings and fault and causation of the subject collision.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
66h44d

January 18, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2