Brown v. Kavavnaugh et al

Filing 86

ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion In Limine No.1 To Exclude Reference To Any Source Of Possible Judgment (ECF No. 75 ), ORDER Denying As Moot Motion In Limine No.2 To Exclude Witnesses Not Previously Disclosed (ECF No. 76 ), ORDER Granting In P art And Denying In Part Defendants' Motion In Limine No.3 To Exclude Evidence Relating To Dismissed Claims And Damages Related Thereto (ECF No. 77 ), ORDER Granting Motion In Limine No.4 To Exclude Plaintiff's Exhibit Declarations (ECF No. 78 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/29/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAREEM BROWN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
J. KAVANAUGH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-01764-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE
TO ANY SOURCE OF POSSIBLE JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 75)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE
WITNEESES NOT PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED
(ECF No. 76)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATING TO
DISMISSED CLAIMS AND DAMAGES
RELATED THERETO (ECF No. 77)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S
EXHIBIT DECLARATIONS (ECF No. 78)

24
25

I.

Introduction

26

Plaintiff Kareem Brown is a state prisoner currently housed at Centinela State Prison. The

27

events at issue occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran State Prison in 2008. This action

28

proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Garcia for reporting that Plaintiff forced open the
1

1

housing unit door on August 26, 2008, as retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and against

2

Defendant Kavanaugh for suspending Plaintiff from the Men’s Advisory Council (“MAC”) on August

3

26, 2008, as retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The matter is set for jury trial before the

4

undersigned on May 2, 2013.

5
6
7

On April 8, 2013, Defendants filed motions in limine. (ECF Nos. 75, 76, 77, and 78.) Plaintiff
did not file timely oppositions to the motions.
II.

8
9

Motions in Limine
A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before it is

actually introduced at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984). “[A] motion in

10

limine is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded

11

management of the trial proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436,

12

440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve evidentiary disputes before trial

13

and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in front of the jury. Brodit v. Cambra, 350

14

F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003).

15

Motions in limine that exclude broad categories of evidence are disfavored and such issues are

16

better dealt with during trial as the admissibility of evidence arises. Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire &

17

Rubber, Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). Additionally, some evidentiary issues are not

18

accurately and efficiently evaluated by the trial judge in a motion in limine and it is necessary to defer

19

ruling until trial when the judge can better estimate the impact of the evidence on the jury. Jonasson,

20

115 F.3d at 440.

21
22

III.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Reference to Any Source of Possible
Judgment

23

Defendants move the Court for an order precluding Plaintiff from referencing, alluding to or

24

otherwise mentioning to the jury through testimony or other means that the State of California or the

25

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) would be liable for paying any

26

judgment for damages that Plaintiff may be awarded. Defendants contend that such information is not

27

relevant and would be highly prejudicial pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.

28
2

1

Defendants also contend that such evidence is tantamount to evidence of insurance, which is improper

2

pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801.

3

Information regarding whether the State or CDCR would pay a verdict or reimburse

4

Defendants for any compensatory damage award, if any, is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claim of

5

retaliation. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1 to preclude such information is

6

GRANTED.

7

IV.

8
9

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Witnesses Not Previously Disclosed
Defendants seek an order limiting Plaintiff to only those witnesses that he disclosed in

discovery. The pretrial order limits Plaintiff’s witnesses to the following persons: (1) Plaintiff; (2)

10

Defendant Garcia; and (3) Defendant Kavanaugh. The order provides that no other witnesses may be

11

called at trial unless the parties stipulate or upon a showing that the pretrial order should be modified

12

to prevent “manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); ECF No. 72, pp. 9-10. The pretrial order also

13

expressly states that “Plaintiff may not call any incarcerated witnesses to testify at trial.” ECF No. 72,

14

p. 14. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion in limine no. 2 to limit Plaintiff’s witnesses is unnecessary

15

and is DENIED AS MOOT.

16
17

V.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence Relating to Dismissed
Claims and Damages Related Thereto

18

Defendants seek an order precluding Plaintiff from referring to, commenting on or questioning

19

any witness or in any way conveying to the jury information about dismissed parties, dismissed claims

20

or damages related to those dismissed parties or claims. In particular, Defendants are concerned that

21

Plaintiff will attempt to revive claims that were dismissed by summary judgment. These claims are

22

identified as follows: (1) Plaintiff’s claims regarding Defendant Garcia allegedly refusing Plaintiff

23

access to the housing unit on October 14, 2008; (2) Plaintiff’s claims regarding Defendant Kavanaugh

24

allegedly disposing of Plaintiff’s burrito on November 9, 2008; and (3) Plaintiff’s claims regarding his

25

November 9, 2008 suspension from the Men’s Advisory Council by Defendant Kavanaugh.

26
27

Defendants contend that any complaints, grievances or appeals related to these dismissed
claims should not be admitted into evidence because they are irrelevant and confusing. Fed. R. Evid.

28
3

1

401. Defendants also argue that evidence of such claims is unduly prejudicial, highly likely to

2

consume unnecessary time and confusing to the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

3

Defendants seek a specific instruction that Plaintiff is limited to his claims of alleged

4

retaliation in connection with the events of August 26, 2008, the malfunctioning front door of Housing

5

Unit 4 and Plaintiff’s suspension from the Men’s Advisory Council related directly to the door

6

incident. Defendants also request that Plaintiff be precluded from entering into evidence any

7

documents or testimony concerning other appeals or grievances that he has filed. As this is a

8

retaliation claim, however, there must be some evidence proffered that Plaintiff submitted other

9

appeals or grievances prior to the events of August 26, 2008.
Defendants’ motion in limine no. 3 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Matters

10
11

pled and dismissed in this case are not relevant to Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Fed. R. Evid. 401.

12

However, as this is a retaliation action, Plaintiff must be permitted to explain for what the defendants

13

were retaliating against. Accordingly, evidence of dismissed claims will be limited for that purpose,

14

but otherwise not allowed as irrelevant.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Plaintiff’s Exhibit Declarations

15

VI.

16

Plaintiff has listed the declarations of Matthew Powell, Robert Smith III and Nakia McClain as

17

exhibits he expects to offer at trial. Plaintiff also identified the declarations of Defendants Garcia and

18

Kavanaugh.

19

With regard to Powell, Smith and McClain, Plaintiff did not file any motions for the attendance of

20

incarcerated witnesses and these persons are not listed as witnesses. Defendants contend that their

21

declarations are hearsay as they will be offered to prove that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff.

22

Fed. R. Evid. 801. Defendants argue that such declarations are inadmissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.

23

802. With regard to the declarations of Defendants Kavanaugh and Garcia, Defendants assert that

24

they will be called to testify at trial and it would be improper to use their declarations in lieu of live

25

testimony.

26
27

The declarations of Powell, Smith, McClain, Kavanaugh and Garcia are inadmissible hearsay.
Fed. R. Evid. 802. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion and has not identified any applicable

28
4

1

exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion in limine no. 4 is

2

GRANTED.

3

VII.

Conclusion and Order

4

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

5

1. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1 to exclude reference to any source of possible

6

judgment is GRANTED;
2. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 2 to exclude witnesses not previously disclosed is

7
8

DENIED AS MOOT;
3. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 3 to exclude evidence relating to dismissed claims

9
10

and damages related thereto is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and
4. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 4 to exclude Plaintiff’s exhibit declarations is

11
12

GRANTED.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

April 29, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5