Martinez et al v. Wester et al

Filing 69

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 56 Motion in Limine and 57 Motion in Limine ; ORDERED that Court need not address Plaintiffs' other requests, because Defendants stipulate to them, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 07/06/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

JOSE J. MARTINEZ, ELIDA ARIAS,
JOSEPH D. MARTINEZ, and JESSE L.
MARTINEZ,

11

Plaintiffs,

12
13

Case No. 1:13-CV-00320-LJO-SMS
ORDER ON PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN
LIMINE.

v.
(Docs. 56-57)

14

TIMOTHY WEBSTER and JASON
COOK,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

This case concerns the circumstances surrounding the March 4, 2011 detention of Plaintiffs
Joseph D. and Jesse L. Martinez and the arrest of their father, Jose J. Martinez, by Stanislaus County
Sheriff’s Department (SCSD) officer Jason Cook and Stanislaus County Animal Control Officer
Timothy Wester. Both parties submitted timely motions in limine. Plaintiffs opposed the single
motion brought by Defendants. Defendants opposed two of Plaintiffs’ seven motions and stipulated to
the remainder.

23
I.

DISCUSSION

24
25
26

A.

Defendants’ Request to Exclude Post-Criminal Complaint Activities
Defendants seek to exclude evidence of “all events occurring after a criminal complaint was

filed, including the District Attorney’s decision to dismiss the case.” Doc. 56. Generally, the filing of

27
28

a criminal complaint immunizes investigating officers from damages suffered thereafter “because it is

1

presumed that the prosecutor filing the complaint exercised independent judgment in determining

2

that probable cause for an accused's arrest exists at that time.” Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 266

3

(9th Cir. 1981) (overruled on other grounds). This presumption may be rebutted, however, where

4

arresting officers knowingly present false information to the district attorney. Id. at 266-67.

5

Plaintiffs previously produced testimonial evidence that, if believed, suggests Defendant Timothy

6

Wester knowingly presented false information to the district attorney, and the Court anticipates

7
such evidence will be presented at trial. At this time, the Court will not exclude preemptively
8
9

evidence of events occurring after any criminal complaint was filed. Accordingly, the Court

10

DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ request.

11

B.

12

Plaintiffs’ Requests to Exclude Evidence of Prior Lawsuits and Certain Character
Evidence
Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of any other lawsuits they have brought against law

13
14

enforcement agencies, along with any testimony provided by Plaintiffs in the context of such

15

lawsuits. Doc. 58. Defendants concede that such evidence may not be relevant to this case standing

16

alone, but may become so depending on testimony provided at trial. Doc. 58. This Court agrees that

17

such evidence cannot be excluded entirely at this time, as such evidence may be relevant,

18

depending on the nature of Plaintiffs’ testimony. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT

19
20

PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ requests to exclude evidence of prior lawsuits.
Plaintiffs separately seek to exclude character evidence. “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or

21
22

other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular

23

occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). However,

24

such evidence may be allowed on cross-examination “if it is probative of the character for

25

truthfulness or untruthfulness of [] the witness or [] another witness whose character the witness

26

being cross-examined has testified about.” Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). The Court cannot rule on the

27

admissibility of character evidence in a vacuum. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT

28
2

1

PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ requests to exclude certain character evidence.

2
3
4

II.

ORDER

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ motion in limine and the fourth
and seventh requests contained in Plaintiffs’ motion in limine. The Court need not address

5
6

Plaintiffs’ other requests, because Defendants stipulate to them.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 6, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3