James v. Sheklanian, et al.

Filing 65

ORDER Re Motions In Limine Of Defendant Shant Shekllanian signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 4/20/2010. (Gaumnitz, R)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rosemary T. McGuire, Esq. Bar No. 172549
WEAKLEY, ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP 1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176 Fresno, California 93710 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendants, City of Madera, Officer Shant Sheklanian Officer Jason Gutknecht

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 JOHN JUSTIN JAMES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) SHANT SHEKLANIAN, JASON ) GUTKNECHT, MICHAEL B. KIME, ) CITY OF MADERA, and DOES 1 ) THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________ ) CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01943-OWW-GSA ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANT SHANT SHEKLANIAN

Trial Date: April 20, 2010

The motions in limine of Defendant SHANT SHEKLANIAN came on for hearing on April 13, 2010. The following rulings were made: Motion in Limine No. 1, to preclude evidence not produced in discovery, is granted. Motion in Limine No. 2, to preclude improper comments regarding damages, is granted. Motion in Limine No. 3, to preclude evidence of liability insurance, is granted. Motion in Limine No. 4, to preclude evidence of indemnification of Defendant by his employer, is granted. Motion in Limine No. 5, to exclude non-party witnesses from the courtroom, is granted. Motion in Limine No. 6, to preclude references to alleged inadequate training or supervision, is granted; however, plaintiff can inquire as to the extent of Officer Sheklanian's taser training and circumstances under which he is authorized to use the taser.

____________________________
Order Re Defendant's Motions in Limine

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

Motion in Limine No. 7, to preclude evidence of Plaintiff's alleged peacemaking activity prior to the arrival of the police officers to the scene, is denied; however, the jury will be instructed that the officers are not tasked with knowledge of plaintiff's actions prior to their arrival. Motion in Limine No. 8, to preclude evidence of any other complaints or lawsuits against Defendant, or any other Madera Police Department officer, is granted. Motion in Limine No. 9, to preclude evidence that Plaintiff's criminal case was dismissed, is granted; however, the jury will be instructed as to the limited purpose for which the evidence will be introduced and counsel is precluded from arguing or in any way inferring that the decision of the District Attorney in dismissing the case is evidence that the arrest of plaintiff was unlawful. Motion in Limine No. 10, to preclude evidence of the lack of an administrative investigation, is granted. Motion in Limine No. 11, to preclude use of video footage at trial, is reserved pending presentation of further evidence on the issue. Motion in Limine No. 12, to preclude evidence related to any officer's personnel file including discipline or previous internal affairs complaints, is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 20, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

____________________________
Order Re Defendant's Motions in Limine

2