Leyro v. City of Chowchilla et al

Filing 31

ORDER After Hearing On Motions In Limine Of Defendants City Of Chowchilla, Officer Jeff Palmer, and Officer Tyler J. Hormel, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/2/2010. (Gaumnitz, R)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

LORI R. MAYFIELD, #172074 MICHELLE E. SASSANO, #232368 MAYFIELD & LEATH
A PR O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N Attorneys at Law

1500 W. SHAW AVE., SUITE 204 FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93711 TELEPHONE [phone] FACSIMILE [phone]

Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, JEFF PALMER, TYLER J. HORMEL, CHOWCHILLA POLICE DEPARTMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FRESNO DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) DOMINGO LEYRO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, CHOWCHILLA ) POLICE DEPARTMENT, JEFF PALMER, ) ) TYLER J. HORMEL and DOES 1-100, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ___________________________________ ) CASE NO.:1:08-CV-01675-OWW-SKO ORDER AFTER HEARING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, OFFICER JEFF PALMER AND OFFICER TYLER J. HORMEL

Trial: June 8, 2010

This matter came on regularly for hearing on May 28, 2010, in Courtroom 3, before the

21 Honorable Oliver Wanger. Steve Geringer with the Law Offices of Steve Geringer appeared on 22 behalf of Plaintiff DOMINGO LEYRO (hereinafter "Plaintiff"). Michelle E. Sassano with the law 23 firm of Mayfield & Leath appeared on behalf of DEFENDANTS CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, 24 OFFICER JEFF PALMER AND OFFICER TYLER J. HORMEL (hereinafter "Defendants") . 25 The Court issues the following rulings on Defendant's motions in limine. 26 1. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude The Use of Evidence or Witnesses

27 Not Previously Disclosed to Defendants During Discovery. The Court GRANTS this motion in 28
ORDER AFTER HEARING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, OFFICER JEFF PALMER AND 1 OFFICER TYLER J. HORMEL

1 limine and EXCLUDES all evidence or witnesses not previously disclosed to Defendants during 2 discovery. 3 2. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 To Preclude Improper Comments Regarding

4 Damages. The Court GRANTS this motion in limine and PRECLUDES Plaintiff's counsel from 5 making comment or argument before the jury that suggests that jurors should base Plaintiff's 6 damages, if any, on an amount that jurors would charge to endure similar injuries or to suggest that 7 jurors place themselves in the "shoes" of the party in order to determine damages. This is frequently 8 called "Golden Rule" argument. 9 3. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 3 To Preclude Evidence of Liability Insurance.

10 The Court GRANTS this motion in limine and PRECLUDES Plaintiff's counsel 11 from presenting evidence concerning the insurance of Officer Palmer and Officer Hormel or their 12 employer, the City of Chowchilla. 13 4. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 4 To Preclude Evidence of Indemnification

14 of Defendant. The Court GRANTS this motion in limine and PRECLUDES Plaintiff's counsel from 15 soliciting testimony, or presenting evidence, regarding Officer Palmer's and Officer Hormel's 16 indemnification for damages by the City of Chowchilla. 17 5. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 5 To Exclude Non-party Witnesses from

18 Courtroom. The Court GRANTS this motion in limine and EXCLUDES non party witnesses from 19 being present in the courtroom during trial-related proceedings. 20 6. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 6 To Preclude Testimony Referencing Alleged

21 Inadequate Training. The Court GRANTS this motion in limine and PRECLUDES Plaintiff from 22 making any statement, argument, or reference to any alleged inadequate training of City of 23 Chowchilla Police Department. There will not be a Monell claim. 24 7. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 7 To Preclude Evidence Regarding Other

25 Lawsuits Or Incidents Where There Is a Claim of Excessive Force Against Defendant Or Any 26 Other Chowchilla Police Officer. The Court GRANTS this motion in limine and PRECLUDES 27 Plaintiff from introducing evidence or testimony regarding any other lawsuits in 28
1500 W. SHAW AVE., STE. 204 FRESNO, CA 93711

M A Y F IE L D & L E A T H

ORDER AFTER HEARING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, OFFICER JEFF PALMER AND 2 OFFICER TYLER J. HORMEL

1

which Officer Palmer and/or Officer Hormel, or any other officer with the Chowchilla Police

2 Department, was named as an accused officer or a defendant. 3 8. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 8 To Preclude Evidence that Plaintiff Was

4 Found Not Guilty in His Second Criminal Trial. The Court GRANTS this motion in limine in 5 part. Plaintiff may introduce evidence of the verdict in the second criminal trial for the purpose of 6 his damages claim and it can only be considered for that limited purpose. This will be subject to 7 admonition and jury instruction. 8 9. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 9 To Exclude Expert Opinions By Non

9 Experts, Including Plaintiff. The Court GRANTS this motion in limine and PRECLUDES Plaintiff 10 from introducing expert opinions of any undisclosed experts, including Plaintiff. 11 10. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 10 To Preclude Evidence Related to either

12 Officer Hormel or Officer Palmer's Personnel File Including Discipline or Previous Internal 13 Affair Complaints. The Court GRANTS this motion in limine and PRECLUDES Plaintiff from 14 presenting evidence included in the personnel records of either Officer Hormel or Officer Palmer. 15 This includes, but is not limited to, information of a personal nature as well as information concerning 16 any disciplinary actions or complaints levied against Officer Palmer or Officer Hormel. This motion 17 in limine does not preclude Defendants from introducing information contained in Officer Domingo 18 Leyro's personnel file. 19 11. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 11 To Exclude Pictures of Plaintiff Taken

20 After the Incident. The Court GRANTS this motion in limine in part. Plaintiff may introduce 21 pictures which reflect the lay out of the residence, dimensions of the rooms, doors and such that 22 reflect the scene. Plaintiff may also introduce the two pictures of Plaintiff's cats. Plaintiff may not 23 introduce pictures which are a reenactment of the incident from Plaintiff's perspective. Plaintiff may 24 not introduce the picture taken of himself standing facing the hallway with his palms open and facing 25 out, allegedly showing his position at the time the officer's tased him. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28
1500 W. SHAW AVE., STE. 204 FRESNO, CA 93711

M A Y F IE L D & L E A T H

ORDER AFTER HEARING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, OFFICER JEFF PALMER AND 3 OFFICER TYLER J. HORMEL

1

12.

Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 12 to Exclude Emergency Protective Order.

2 The Court DENIES this motion in limine. Plaintiff may introduce the Emergency Protective Order. 3 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: June 2, 2010 9 emm0d6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1500 W. SHAW AVE., STE. 204 FRESNO, CA 93711

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

M A Y F IE L D & L E A T H

ORDER AFTER HEARING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, OFFICER JEFF PALMER AND 4 OFFICER TYLER J. HORMEL