Gilmore v. Augustus, et al.

Filing 240

ORDER Regarding Tentative Rulings Plaintiff's 239 Motions In Limine signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 02/16/2017. Telephonic Motion in Limine Hearing set for 2/27/2017 at 03:45 PM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

C. DWAYNE GILMORE,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

v.
C. LOCKARD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00925-SAB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING TENTATIVE RULINGS
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
(ECF No. 239)
Telephonic Motion in Limine Hearing:
February 27, 2017, at 3:45 p.m. in Courtroom 9

17
18

Plaintiff C. Dwayne Gilmore is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Lockard, Lopez, and

20

Hightower for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The claims arise out of events at

21

Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) on July 8, 2010, when Plaintiff was shot with a sponge round and

22

pepper sprayed. All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.

23

(ECF Nos. 8, 199.) A jury trial is set for February 28, 2017 at 8:15 a.m.

24

On February 13, 2017, the Court held a telephonic motions in limine hearing. Plaintiff stated at

25

the hearing that he mailed a motion in limine on February 8, 2017. Neither the Court nor Defendants

26

received those documents by the time of the hearing.

27
28

After the hearing, the Court received Plaintiff’s motions in limine, which was filed on February
13, 2017, and entered on February 14, 2017. (ECF No. 239). Because of the prior proceedings here,
1

1

and to avoid any undue prejudice to either party in preparing their presentation of the evidence, the

2

Court finds it appropriate to issue the following tentative rulings on Plaintiff’s motions in limine.
The parties may file any written objections to the tentative rulings in this order by February

3
4

23, 2017. The Court will also hold a telephonic hearing on Plaintiff’s motions in limine on February

5

27, 2017, at 3:45 p.m. in Courtroom 9, before the undersigned. If the Court is not swayed by the

6

written objections or by the arguments at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become final, and the

7

parties should be prepared at trial for such a ruling.1

8

I.

9

LEGAL STANDARD

10

“A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence in a

11

particular area.” United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009). A party may use a

12

motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before it is actually introduced at

13

trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). “[A] motion in limine is an important tool

14

available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded management of the trial

15

proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436,440 (7th Cir. 1997). A

16

motion in limine allows the parties to resolve evidentiary disputes before trial and avoids potentially

17

prejudicial evidence being presented in front of the jury, thereby relieving the trial judge from the

18

formidable task of neutralizing the taint of prejudicial evidence. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985,

19

1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003).

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997).

26
27
28

1

The Court understands that Plaintiff may be in transit for trial during the period provided for objections to
these tentative rulings, and as a result may be prevented from filing written objections by the deadline provided.
As noted, he will nevertheless be granted an opportunity to be heard orally at the telephonic hearing.

2

1

II.

2

MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

3

A.

4

Plaintiff seeks to exclude: (1) portions of the CDCR 837, Crime/Incident Report, incident log

5

no. KVSP-FA8-10-07-0403; (2) portions of Plaintiff’s records from the Inmate/Parole Appeals

6

Tracking System, for Level I and II Appeal Listing from KVSP, and Level III Appellant Appeal

7

History from Office of Appeals; (3) CDCR Form 602, Inmate/Parolee Appeal, log no. KVSP-10-

8

01736, and CDCR Form 602, Inmate/Parole Appeal, log no. KVSP-10-02168; (4) photographs and

9

diagrams of Facility A-8, Building A, that have not been provided to Plaintiff.

10

1.

CDCR 837, Crime/Incident Report, Incident Log No. KVSP-FA8-10-07-0403

11

Plaintiff moves to exclude the statements from non-testifying individuals recorded in the

12

CDCR 837, Crime/Incident Report, incident log no. KVSP-FA8-10-07-0403, as inadmissible hearsay.

13

Specifically, he seeks to exclude the statements on pages 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 20-22, 25, 28 and 29

14

from this report. These statements concern various versions of the events at issue in this case that

15

occurred on July 8, 2010. Plaintiff further argues that the admission of these statements is unduly

16

prejudicial, that the jury may be confused by them, and because the evidence is irrelevant.

17

Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that all relevant evidence is admissible and evidence

18

that is not relevant is inadmissible. Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as “evidence having any

19

tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action

20

more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Rule 403 provides that relevant

21

evidence may be excluded if it will cause prejudice, undue delay, a waste of time, or a needless

22

presentation of cumulative evidence in the discretion of the Court. Obrey v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 691,

23

698 (9th Cir. 2005).

24

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter

25

asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Unless hearsay is subject to a hearsay exception, it is not admissible.

26

Fed. R. Evid. 802, 803.

27

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), hearsay contained in certain records made as a regular

28

practice of a business may be admissible. “For a memorandum or record to be admissible as a business
3

1

record, it must be (1) made by a regularly conducted business activity, (2) kept in the “regular course”

2

of that business, (3) “the regular practice of that business to make the memorandum,” (4) and made by

3

a person with knowledge or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge.” Clark v. City

4

of Los Angeles, 650 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)). The basis of this

5

exception is that “accuracy is assured because the maker of the record relies on the record in the

6

ordinary course of business activities.” Id. (citing Advisory Committee Note to Rule 803(6)).

7

However, this exception does not apply where a record was made solely for the purpose of litigation,

8

and not for routinely conducting business, because such a document is lacking in trustworthiness. Id.

9

at 1037 (citing Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 63 S. Ct. 447 (1943)).
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion in limine is tentatively GRANTED. Although the report

10
11

discusses the events at issue and is therefore generally relevant, if the statements in the report are

12

offered to prove that the events happened as described in those documents, those statements are

13

hearsay. To the extent the report is offered under the business record exception to the rule excluding

14

hearsay, it does not qualify for that exception. The report was created for the purpose of litigation, and

15

therefore lacks the assurances of trustworthiness associated with routine business records relied upon

16

for the day-to-day operations of a business. See Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. at 113, 63 S. Ct. at 480-

17

81 (“[T]hat a company makes a business out of recording its employees’ versions of their accidents

18

does not put those statements in the class of records made ‘in the regular course’ of the business. . .

19

.”).

20

2. Evidence of Plaintiff’s Appeals from Inmate/Parole Appeals Tracking System

21

Plaintiff moves to exclude portions of his records from the Inmate/Parole Appeals Tracking

22

System, for Level I and II Appeal Listing from KVSP (“Level I and II Appeals Report”), and Level III

23

Appellant Appeal History from Office of Appeals (“Level III Appeals Report”). The Level I and II

24

Appeals Report sets forth Plaintiff’s Level I and Level II inmate appeals received at KVSP from May

25

8, 2006 through November 21, 2011, including information about the issue presented, the log number,

26

when they were completed, and the disposition. The Level III Appeals Report sets forth Plaintiff’s

27

Level III inmate appeals received by the Office of Appeals from May 8, 2003 through November 19,

28
4

1

2016, including those that were accepted and screened out, with information about the issue addressed,

2

the log number, the closed date, and the disposition.

3

Plaintiff argues that this evidence is irrelevant, except for the entries on page four of the Level

4

I and II Appeals Report, and on page 1 of the Level III Appeals Report for the staff complaint he made

5

regarding the events at issue. Plaintiff further argues that the admission of this evidence would confuse

6

the issues, mislead the jury, and waste time. He asserts that the admission of this evidence would cause

7

him to be required to produce evidence related to all of the other appeals and explain the facts of those

8

appeals, to show they are irrelevant to the July 8, 2010 events. Plaintiff further argues that this

9

evidence is particularly irrelevant here because the Defendants are not arguing that Plaintiff failed to

10
11

exhaust his administrative remedies as a defense.
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion is tentatively GRANTED. Plaintiff’s history of inmate

12

appeals that are unrelated to the July 8, 2010 events is irrelevant to this action, and inadmissible. The

13

subject matter, investigation, and disposition of those appeals is immaterial to Defendants’ actions

14

here, and the admission of such evidence would also cause confusion, waste time, and mislead the jury

15

about the facts and issues to be determined at trial.

16
17
18

3.

CDCR Form 602, Inmate/Parolee Appeal, Log No. KVSP-10-01736, and
CDCR Form 602, Inmate/Parole Appeal, Log No. KVSP-10-02168

Plaintiff moves to exclude CDCR Form 602, Inmate/Parolee Appeal, log no. KVSP-10-01736

19

(“1736 Appeal”), and CDCR Form 602, Inmate/Parole Appeal, log no. KVSP-10-02168 (“2168

20

Appeal”), as needlessly cumulative evidence. The 1736 Appeal concerns Plaintiff’s placement in Ad

21

Seg on July 8, 2010 after being charged with a CDCR Form 115 Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) for

22

battery on a peace officer. The 2168 Appeal pertains to the disciplinary hearing process for the RVR

23

issued to Plaintiff on July 8, 2010. The documents submitted are both Plaintiff’s Form 602s and the

24

appeals examiners decisions regarding those appeals.

25

Plaintiff argues that both parties have also identified as an exhibit CDCR Form 602,

26

Inmate/Parolee Appeal, log no. KVSP-O-10-01442 (“1442 Appeal”), and the introduction of the other

27

602s he seeks to exclude would be needlessly cumulative of that evidence that the parties agree upon.

28

Plaintiff further argues that the 1442 Appeal is sufficient to establish the consequential facts and is
5

1

more complete than the 1736 Appeal, and that both the 1736 Appeal and the 2168 Appeal contains

2

multiple levels of inadmissible hearsay.
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion is tentatively GRANTED. Also, as discussed in the

3
4

February 13, 2017 order on Defendants’ motion to exclude the 602 appeal package for the 1442

5

Appeal, that appeal is excluded as well. The fact that Plaintiff made staff complaints and engaged in

6

the administrative grievance process after the events at issue does not tend to prove or disprove

7

whether Defendants used excessive force. Fed. R. Evid. 401. The documents also contain inadmissible

8

hearsay.

9

In the event any of these 602 appeals packages are necessary for impeachment or other

10

permissible purpose, the parties may raise the issue at trial, and the matter will be considered outside

11

the presence of the jury.

12

4.

Photographs and Diagrams of Facility A-8, Building A

13

Plaintiff moves to exclude Defendants from introducing into evidence photographs and

14

diagrams of Facility A-8, Building A that were not exchanged with him prior to trial, on the grounds

15

that security purposes preclude such items from being provided to Plaintiff. Plaintiff admits that

16

Defendants stated that Plaintiff may contact his counselor to make arrangements to view the

17

photographs and diagrams. (ECF No. 239, pp. 20-21.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff argues that he is

18

prejudiced because his assigned counselor did not have the evidence, and that he is at a disadvantage

19

for not being able to view this evidence until trial starts.

20

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion is tentatively DENIED. Defendants’ concerns regarding

21

prison safety and security are well taken, as the Court recognizes the potential dangers associated with

22

inmates possessing photographs and diagrams of a particular prison. Further, the Court finds that the

23

Defendants’ interest in prison safety and security outweighs Plaintiff’s marginal, if any, disadvantage

24

from not being able to view these photographs and diagrams in advance of the beginning of trial.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
6

1

III.

2

CONCLUSION

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

5

described above;

6

2.

The parties may file written objections to these tentative rulings by February 23, 2017;

7

3.

A telephonic hearing on Plaintiff’s motions in limine will be held on February 27,

Plaintiff’s motions in limine are tentatively granted and denied, without prejudice, as

8

2017, at 3:45 p.m. in Courtroom 9, before the undersigned. Counsel for Defendants is directed to

9

arrange for telephone contact with Plaintiff and to contact the Courtroom Deputy, Mamie Hernandez,

10

at [phone], prior to the hearing date, to receive instructions regarding the conference call; and,
4.

11

If the Court is not swayed by the written objections and/or by the arguments at

12

the hearing, this tentative ruling will become final, and the parties should be prepared at trial

13

for such a ruling.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

17

February 16, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7