Quinn v. Fresno County Sheriff et al

Filing 123

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 (Doc. 111) signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on July 25, 2012. (Munoz, I)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

JAMES LORAN QUINN,

7

Case No. 1:10-cv-01617 LJO BAM

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN
LIMINE NO. 8

vs.
(Doc. 111)

9

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11

/

12

By order filed July 23, 2012, the Court issued written rulings on the parties’ motions in limine.

13

Among its rulings, the Court held Defendants’ motion in limine number 8 in abeyance pending further

14

briefing from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has since filed further briefing on this matter. The Court has carefully

15

considered Plaintiff’s arguments and for the reasons set forth below GRANTS Defendants’ motion in

16

limine number 8 in its entirety.

17

1.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8

18

Defendants request pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 615 that all non-party witnesses be

19

removed from the courtroom during trial-related proceedings. Plaintiff opposes this motion in limine

20

only to the extent that his expert witness, Loren Buddress, would be precluded from being present in the

21

courtroom while other witnesses are testifying. Plaintiff asserts that Loren Buddress plans to base his

22

expert opinions on the factual testimony of other witnesses.

23

In ordering additional briefing on this matter, the Court instructed Plaintiff to substantiate his

24

assertion that Loren Buddress must hear the testimony of other witnesses to form his expert opinions.

25

The Court explained that at this point it appeared that Plaintiff simply intended to have Loren Buddress

26

listen to the testimony of other witnesses so that Loren Buddress could opine whether there was in fact

27

probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. However, the possibility of Loren Buddress offering such an opinion

28
1

1

was explicitly foreclosed by the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion in limine number 5.1 Therefore,

2

there appeared to be no reason for allowing Loren Buddress to be present in the courtroom while other

3

witnesses testify.

4

Plaintiff’s additional briefing fails to address the Court’s expressed concerns. Plaintiff asserts

5

that Loren Buddress’ presence is required because (1) Wade Mangiarelli “may give testimony which

6

would affect Mr. Buddress’ opinion as Plaintiff’s expert,” and (2) Defendant David Alanis’ deposition

7

testimony is “contradictory” and therefore Mr. Buddress should be allowed to be present and hear his

8

testimony. (Doc. 121, Decl. of David M. Hollingsworth, ¶¶ 3-4.) This simply repeats Plaintiff’s prior,

9

bald assertion that Loren Buddress must listen to the testimony of other witnesses. It does not explain

10

what expert opinion, apart from whether probable cause in fact existed, Loren Buddress is expected to

11

draw from the testimony.

12

As such, Plaintiff has not made a fair, substantiated showing that Loren Buddress’ presence in

13

the courtroom during trial is “essential” to Plaintiff’s case. Fed. R. Evid. 615(c). See United States v.

14

Sechillie, 310 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendants’ request to sequester non-party witnesses,

15

including Loren Buddress, must therefore be GRANTED. See Fed. R. Evid. 615.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:
b9ed48

July 25, 2012

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

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

The Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion in limine number 5 precludes Loren Buddress from offering expert
opinions on ultimate legal conclusions, including whether probable cause to arrest Plaintiff in fact existed. See Burkhart v.
W ash. Metro. Area Transit Authority, 112 F.3d 1207, 1212-13 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“[A]n expert may offer his opinion as to
the facts that, if found would support a conclusion that the legal standard at issue was satisfied, but he may not testify as to
whether the legal standard has been satisfied.”); Hao-Qi Gong v. Jones, No. C 03-005495 TEH, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
111178, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008) (“Courts regularly prohibit experts from testifying on the ultimate issue of whether
there was ‘probable cause’ for an arrest.”).

2