Ortiz et al v. Alvarez et al
Filing
255
ORDER RULING ON THE PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Doc. Nos. 218 , 219 ) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/18/2019. (Thorp, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LUIS RAMOS, et al.,
12
No. 1:15-cv-00535-DAD-EPG
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
ORDER RULING ON THE PARTIES’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
14
GERARDO ALVAREZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 218, 219)
16
At the August 5, 2019 final pretrial conference held in this action the parties were advised
17
18
that the Eastern District of California has long labored under one of the heaviest weighted
19
caseloads in the country per judge, that the lack of judicial resources in this district had reached a
20
crisis level and that, as a result, the amount of those scarce resources that could be devoted to the
21
trial of this action would be limited. The court also advised the parties that the filing of motions
22
in limine was discouraged. That admonition was repeated in the court’s Final Pretrial Order.
23
(Doc. No. 217 at 2.) Nonetheless, the parties have ignored this court’s admonition for the most
24
part and filed a total of sixty-nine motions in limine1 along with over 250 pages of briefing and
25
1
26
27
28
Counsel for defendants filed 49 of the 69 motions in limine. Although counsel for plaintiffs
Luis Ramos and Gudelia Sandoval purported to file only two motions in limine, counsel
delineated 20 such motions under two headings and the court in ruling will refer to those as
motions 1 through 20. It also is apparent from these motions that little effort was devoted by
counsel to any meet and confer process. Pro se plaintiffs Alfonso and Elida Padron filed no
motions in limine.
1
1
other documents addressing those motions. Given both the volume and sometimes convoluted
2
and/or arguably frivolous nature of some of those motions, the court will merely rule on them in
3
abbreviated fashion below.
4
Motions in Limine Filed on Behalf of Plaintiffs Luis Ramos and Gudelia Sandoval
5
(Doc. No. 219):
6
Motions in Limine #1, #5, #7, #9, and #12: Granted.
7
Motions in Limine #2, #3, #4, #6, and #10: Granted in part, limiting the testimony
8
of these witnesses to matters regarding the actions of the plaintiffs remaining in
9
this action, and excluding testimony from these witnesses regarding the conduct of
10
11
Juan Sandoval, a terminated plaintiff, as irrelevant.
Motion in Limine #8: Granted in part, limiting the testimony of witness Martin
12
Mares to the relevant subjects of the defendant district’s LEA Plan and related
13
projects, and excluding testimony regarding Juan Sandoval’s conduct as irrelevant.
14
Motion in Limine #11: Granted.
15
Motion in Limine #13: Granted in part, limiting the testimony of witness Sonia
16
Jasso to matters with respect to the actions of the remaining plaintiffs in this action
17
and excluding testimony regarding the conduct of Juan Sandoval as irrelevant.
18
Motions in Limine #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, and #19: Denied without prejudice to
19
the renewal of objection when and if the documents in question are offered into
20
evidence.
21
22
Motion in Limine #20: Denied without prejudice to the renewal of objection when
and if the documents in question are offered into evidence.
23
24
Motions in Limine Filed on Behalf of Defendants Gerardo Alvarez and Parlier
25
Unified School District (Doc. No. 218):
26
Motion in Limine #1: Granted.
27
Motion in Limine #2: Granted.
28
Motion in Limine #3: Granted, albeit unnecessary.
2
1
2
Motion in Limine #4: Granted without prejudice to plaintiffs presenting additional
argument as to why such evidence should be admitted in this case.
3
Motion in Limine #5: Denied.
4
Motion in Limine #6: Denied without prejudice to renewal of the objection when
5
and if such evidence is offered at trial.
6
Motion in Limine #7: Denied.
7
Motion in Limine #8: Denied.
8
Motion in Limine #9: Denied without prejudice to renewal of the objection when
9
and if such evidence is offered at trial.
10
Motion in Limine #10: Denied.
11
Motion in Limine #11: Granted in part, limiting the testimony of any former
12
plaintiffs to this action to the events they witnessed pertaining to the claims of the
13
remaining plaintiffs and excluding all testimony regarding their own claims or
14
complaints against the defendants.
15
Motion in Limine #12: Granted.
16
Motion in Limine #13: Denied.
17
Motion in Limine #14: Denied without prejudice to defendants renewing their
18
19
objection at trial if appropriate.
20
21
Motion in Limine #15: Denied as moot because plaintiffs do not intend to call an
expert at trial.
Motion in Limine #16: Denied. Witnesses appear on the Witness Lists made part
22
of the Final Pretrial Order which specifically provides that “[e]ach party may call
23
any witnesses designated by the other.” (Doc. No. 217 at 6.)
24
Motion in Limine #17: Denied. Witnesses appear on the Witness Lists made part
25
of the Final Pretrial Order which specifically provides that “[e]ach party may call
26
any witnesses designated by the other.” (Doc. No. 217 at 6.)
27
28
Motion in Limine #18: Denied. Witnesses appear on the Witness Lists made part
of the Final Pretrial Order which specifically provides that “[e]ach party may call
3
1
2
any witnesses designated by the other.” (Doc. No. 217 at 6.)
Motion in Limine #19: Denied. Witnesses appear on the Witness Lists made part
3
of the Final Pretrial Order which specifically provides that “[e]ach party may call
4
any witnesses designated by the other.” (Doc. No. 217 at 6.)
5
Motion in Limine #20: Denied without prejudice to renewal of objection with
6
greater specificity. It appears to the court that the exhibits in question were listed
7
on the exhibit lists incorporated by the Final Pretrial Order.
8
9
greater specificity. It appears to the court that the exhibits in question were listed
10
11
Motion in Limine #21: Denied without prejudice to renewal of objection with
on the exhibit lists incorporated by the Final Pretrial Order.
Motion in Limine #22: Denied without prejudice to renewal of objection with
12
greater specificity. It appears to the court that the exhibits in question were listed
13
on the exhibit lists incorporated by the Final Pretrial Order.
14
Motion in Limine #23: Denied without prejudice to renewal of objection with
15
greater specificity. It appears to the court that the exhibits in question were listed
16
on the exhibit lists incorporated by the Final Pretrial Order.
17
Motion in Limine #24: Denied as unnecessary.
18
Motion in Limine #25: Denied.
19
Motion in Limine #26: Granted.
20
Motion in Limine #27: Denied without prejudice to renewal when and if the
21
22
evidence is offered at trial.
23
24
reference to the “Sunshine Club Fund.”
25
26
27
Motion in Limine #28: Granted in part, excluding testimony or evidence with
Motion in Limine #29: Denied without prejudice to renewal when and if the
evidence is offered at trial.
Motion in Limine #30: Denied without prejudice to renewal when and if the
evidence is offered at trial.
28
4
1
2
Motion in Limine #31: Denied without prejudice to renewal when and if the
evidence is offered at trial.
3
Motion in Limine #32: Granted.
4
Motion in Limine #33: Granted.
5
Motion in Limine #34: Granted.
6
Motion in Limine #35: Denied.
7
Motion in Limine #36: Granted without prejudice to plaintiff presenting further
8
argument in support of admissibility.
9
Motion in Limine #37: Granted.
10
Motion in Limine #38: Granted.
11
Motion in Limine #39: Denied. See Federal Rule of Evidence 32(a)(1).
12
Motion in Limine #40: Granted.
13
Motion in Limine #41: Denied without prejudice to the renewal of the objection if
14
such evidence is offered at trial.
15
Motion in Limine #42: Granted.
16
Motion in Limine #43: Granted.
17
Motion in Limine #44: Denied without prejudice to the renewal of the objection if
18
such evidence is offered at trial.
19
20
Motion in Limine #45: Denied without prejudice to the renewal of the objection if
such evidence is offered at trial.
21
22
Motion in Limine #46: Denied without prejudice to the renewal of the objection if
such evidence is offered at trial.
23
24
Motion in Limine #47: Denied without prejudice to the renewal of the objection if
such evidence is offered at trial.
25
Motion in Limine #48: Denied as utterly unreasonable.
26
Motion in Limine #49: Granted.
27
/////
28
/////
5
1
Trial Schedule
2
In its Final Pretrial Order the court indicated that, despite the parties’ estimate that the trial
3
of this case was anticipated to take three to four weeks, that it was highly unlikely that they could
4
be given that much time. This remains the case. This trial will be conducted on the following
5
days unless it is submitted to the jury for decision earlier: November 19 (commencing at 1:00
6
p.m.), November 20, November 21, November 26, November 272, December 3 (commencing at
7
1:00 p.m.), December 4, December 5, December 6, December 10, December 11, December 12
8
and December 13. During jury selection the perspective jurors will be advised that this matter
9
will be submitted to the jury for decision no later than the morning of December 13, 2019. As
10
stated in the Final Pretrial Order, if necessary the court will impose time limits upon the parties
11
for the presentations of their case in order to meet this schedule.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated:
November 18, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
On November 22, 2019, the undersigned is presiding over a day long settlement conference in a
statewide class action prison conditions lawsuit. The court is closed on November 28 and 29 for
the Thanksgiving Holiday.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?