Archer et al v. City of Taft, Ca. Inc. et al

Filing 100

ORDER ON Defendants' Motions in Limine 89 , 91 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/8/15: First Motion in Limine 89 is DENIED; Second Motion in Limine 91 is GRANTED. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14

DARRELL ARCHER, AND KEITHA
DARQUEA,
Plaintiffs,

15
16
17
18

v.
JILL GIPSON; JOSEPH BURKE; AND,
J.E. BURKE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Case No. 1:12-CV-00261-LJO-JLT
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
IN LIMINE.
(Docs. 89, 91)

Defendants.

19
20
21

Plaintiffs Darrell Archer and Keitha Darquea (together, “Plaintiffs”) bring the instant civil

22

rights action against Defendants Jill Gipson, Joseph Burke, and J.E. Burke Construction, Inc.

23

(collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C.

24

§ 1983 (“Section 1983”). Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motions in limine (Docs. 89

25

& 91). The Court deems the matters appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See Local

26

Rule 230(g). The relevant factual background is set forth in the Court’s May 28, 2015 order

27

granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 81). Having

28

reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court rules on the motions in limine as set forth below.

1

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before it

2
3

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

4

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

5

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

6

436,440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve evidentiary disputes before

7

trial and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in front of the jury, thereby

8

relieving the trial judge from the formidable task of neutralizing the taint of prejudicial evidence.

9

Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003).

10

II.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

11

1. To Exclude Evidence of Prior Unrelated Abatements or Liens

12

Defendants seek to exclude any and all evidence of the City of Taft’s unrelated abatements

13

or liens that occurred prior to the subject incident, unrelated to Plaintiffs, because such evidence is

14

irrelevant pursuant to FRE 403.

15

Depending on the jury’s findings, the Court finds the evidence relevant to the issue of

16

possible punitive damages. The requested evidence may also show an absence of mistake and a

17

pattern of illegality or abuse. No 403 factor weighs in favor of the moving defendants. After

18

balancing the weight of the FRE 403 factors, the Court finds in favor of allowing such information.

19

Therefore, the motion is DENIED, with this caveat. The discovery phase of this trial has been

20

completed. Any attempt by the Plaintiffs to turn the trial into a time of renewed discovery will be

21

met by an order of preclusion and possible sanctions.

22

2. To Exclude Witness David Grieg’s Testimony

23

Defendants seek to exclude Plaintiff’s witness David Grieg’s testimony because such

24

testimony is irrelevant pursuant to FRE 403, and such testimony requires an expert witness

25

pursuant to FRE 702.

26

Defendants’ second motion in limine is denied on the factor of irrelevance because such

27

testimony would plainly go to the issue of compensatory damages, and no factor comes close to

28

preclusion that would outweigh admission. The motion, however, is GRANTED because the issue
2

1

requires an expert witness pursuant to FRE 702. Providing an opinion on the worth or cost of

2

lumber and rock requires specialized knowledge not known to the average person without such

3

specialized knowledge.

4

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

5

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Defendants’ first motion in limine (Doc. 89) is DENIED;

7

2. Defendants’ second motion in limine (Doc. 91) is GRANTED.

8
9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 8, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3