Pacific Marine Center, Inc. et al v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company

Filing 170

ORDER Denying 153 154 Motions in Limine, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/12/2016. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC.,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS IN LIMINE

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY,

(Doc. Nos. 153, 154)

Defendant.
On September 27, 2016, defendant filed three motions in limine in connection with the

18

upcoming trial on the remaining claims in this action. (Doc. Nos. 152, 153, 154.) Plaintiff

19

opposed the motions in limine on October 4, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 162, 163, 164.) The court held a

20

hearing on the first motion in limine, which concerned potential bifurcation of the trial, on

21

October 12, 2016 and denied that motion on the record. The court now denies the remaining two

22

motions in limine, concluding that neither is suitable for determination in advance of trial.

23

Defendant’s second motion in limine seeks to exclude on relevancy grounds testimony

24

from the Person Most Knowledgeable from the Department of Motor Vehicles, whom defendant

25

anticipates will testify on the issue of whether the DMV is a law enforcement agency. (Doc. No.

26

153.) While the ultimate relevancy of this anticipated testimony is far from clear to the court, the

27

relevancy standard is a low bar, as the evidence need only have “any tendency” to make a fact of

28

consequence more or less probable in order to be deemed relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Without
1

1

knowing specifically what the testimony will be, this matter is not suitable to a decision prior to

2

trial. Similarly, trial testimony from Dr. Reicherter—the subject of defendant’s third motion in

3

limine—may conceivably be relevant to the court in deciding whether Sona Vartanian acted as

4

one might expect following a theft. (See Doc. No. 154.) Before hearing the specific questions to

5

be asked of this witness, and perhaps the testimony in response to those questions, the court is not

6

capable of ruling on the relevance of the testimony in advance of trial. Of course, relevancy

7

objections to any particular testimony may still be raised at trial.

8

Conclusion

9

Defendant’s motions in limine (Doc. Nos. 153, 154) are denied without prejudice to

10

objections to specific testimony being raised at trial.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

October 12, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2