Arias et al v. Amador et al

Filing 55

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Doc. 54) signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on January 6, 2015. Motion Hearing currently set for 1/12/2015 is VACATED. (Munoz, I)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4

ELIDA ARIAS and JOSE M.
MARTINEZ,

5

1:12-CV-00586 LJO SAB
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN
LIMINE (Doc. 54)

Plaintiffs,

6

v.

7
8

JULIO AMADOR, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

I. INTRODUCTION

11

This case concerns the circumstances surrounding the April 15, 2010 arrest and detention of

12

13 Plaintiffs Elida Arias and Jose J. Martinez by Ceres Police Department (“CPD”) Officers. Plaintiffs
14 advance five causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including unlawful arrest, use of excessive force,
15 failure to intercede and failure to provide medical care. Defendants Officers Julio Amador, Debra
16 Borges, Jason Coley, Pat Dayton, Bryan Ferreira, Jon Vera, Art De Werk and the City of Ceres
17
18
19
20

submitted motions in limine on December 30, 2014. Defs.’ Mot. in Limine, Doc. 54. Plaintiff did not
oppose the motions. Having reviewed Defendants’ submission, the Court VACATES the hearing
scheduled for January 12, 2015.

21
22

II. DISCUSSION
A.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Evidence Not Produced During Discovery
Defendants seek to prohibit admission of evidence not produced during discovery. This request

is GRANTED with the caveat that such evidence may be admitted for the purpose of a true rebuttal.
B.

Comments Regarding Damages
Defendants seek to preclude comments that counsel or witnesses may make suggesting that

jurors should base Plaintiffs’ damages (if any) on an amount that jurors would charge to endure similar

1

1

injuries on the basis that such comments are prohibited and create a substantial danger of undue

2

prejudice. The Court GRANTS this request.

3

C.

4
5

Evidence of Liability Insurance
Defendants move to exclude evidence concerning the insurance of Defendants’ employer, the

City of Ceres. The Court GRANTS this request.

6
7

D.

Defendants request that non-party witnesses be excluded from being present in the courtroom

8
9

Exclusion of Non-Party Witnesses From the Courtroom

during trial related proceedings, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 615. The Court GRANTS this

10 request.
11 E.

Impermissible Lay Witness Testimony

12

Defendants seek to preclude non-expert lay witnesses from offering testimony regarding police

13 practices, medical causation, or the reasonableness of medical damages on the basis that lay witnesses
14 have not been disclosed as experts and lack sufficient expertise in these subjects. The Court GRANTS
15
16
17
18
19
20

this request.
F.

Evidence of Other Lawsuits
Defendants move to preclude evidence of other lawsuits against Defendants or any City of

Ceres police officer or other incidents involving the City of Ceres Police Department. The Court
GRANTS this request subject to the following limitation: testimony regarding these issues shall not be

21 offered in front of the jury unless a motion is first made outside the presence of the jury.
22 //
23 //
24 //
25
26
27
28

//
//
//
2

1
2

G.

Personnel Matter
Defendants seek to exclude questions regarding personnel matters, prior complaints concerning

3

job performance or prior disciplinary issues as to Defendant CPD officers or any other CPD officer

4

who testifies in this matter. This request is GRANTED with the caveat that questions may be asked and

5

evidence may be admitted for the purpose of a true rebuttal.

6
7
8
9
10

III. ORDER
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions in limine, subject to limitations discussed above. The
hearing scheduled for January 12, 2015 is VACATED.

11

SO ORDERED
12 Dated: January 6, 2015
13

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

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