Lobato v. Gomez, et al.

Filing 80

ORDER on Motions in Limine, documents 61 and 62 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/23/2017. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
RACHEL LOBATO,

11

Case No. 1:15-cv-00686-EPG

Plaintiff,

12
13

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
AFTER HEARING

v.

14

EVERARDO O. GOMEZ, individually and dba EL
SARAPE RESTAURANT; DOLORES B.
GOMEZ, individually and dba EL SARAPE
RESTAURANT,
Defendants.

15
16
17

(ECF Nos. 61-62)

18
This is an action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging that Plaintiff
19

Rachel Lobato was denied full access and enjoyment of Defendants’ restaurant—El Sarape

20
Restaurant—because of various structural barriers in the restaurant that Defendants have failed to
21
remedy.
22
23

This case is set for trial on March 7, 2016. The Court held a motion hearing on the parties’
motions in limine (ECF Nos. 61-62) on February 22, 2017.1 Attorney Zachary Best appeared for

24
Plaintiff and attorney Kathleen Marie Phillips-Vieira appeared for Defendants. The purpose of this
25
26
27
28

order is to summarize the rulings issued on the record at the February 22 hearing.

1

Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (ECF
Nos. 7, 11.)

1

1

A. Motions In Limine

2

Plaintiff’s motion in limine consists of four requests to exclude the following evidence:

3

1. Testimony and videos/photographs taken by Allen Stacey. (ECF No. 61.)

4

2. Prior litigation history of Plaintiff. (ECF No. 61-1.)

5

3. Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. 61-2.)

6

4. Expert testimony of Kelly Bray, except as to the information contained in his June 5,

7
8
9
10

2015 CASp report. (ECF No. 61-3.)
Defendants’ filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff has
filed a reply in support of her motion. (ECF No. 71.)
Defendants’ motion in lime is a combined request to exclude 1) Plaintiff’s medical records

11

and 2) the testimony of Dr. Samuel Leon. (ECF No. 62). Plaintiff filed a response opposing the

12

motion. (ECF No. 68.)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

B. Rulings Issued at February 22, 2017 Hearing
For the reasons provided on the record, the following rulings were issued:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 1 is denied. (ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff’s objection that

the probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice is overruled.
2.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 2 is taken under advisement. (ECF No. 61-1.)

Defendants are granted leave to file an opposition brief by February 23, 2017. Plaintiff may file a
reply by February 27, 2017.
3.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 3 is granted. (ECF No. 61-2.) Defendants are

21

precluded from introducing any comment or evidence regarding Plaintiff’s right to recover her

22

attorneys’ fees should she prevail in this action.

23
24
25
26

4.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 4 is granted. (ECF No. 61-3.) Witness Kelly Bray’s

testimony shall be limited to the information contained in his June 5, 2015 CASp report. Defendants
are hereby order to supplement its expert disclosure by February 27, 2017, to include the information
referenced in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(iv) through (vi).

27
28

2

1

5.

Defendants’ motion in limine (ECF No. 62) is taken under advisement. Plaintiff is

2

directed to submit two copies of the medical records to the Court for in camera review as follows: 1)

3

as produced to Defendants (redacted); and 2) unredacted.

4

6.

5

a. Agreed-upon set of jury instructions. Counsel is directed to notify the Court as to

6

any remaining disputed instructions.

7

b. Agreed-upon proposed jury verdict form. Counsel is directed to notify the Court

8

as to any disputes as to the proposed verdict form.

9

c. Agreed-upon statement of the case.

10
11
12

The parties shall jointly submit the following items by February 24, 2017:

C. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion in limine is granted, in part (ECF Nos. 61-2, 61-3), denied, in part (ECF
No. 61), and taken under advisement, in part (ECF No. 61-1).

13

Defendant’s motion in limine (ECF No. 62) is taken under advisement.

14

A separate order will issue on Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 2 (ECF No. 61-1) and

15

Defendant’s motion in limine (ECF No. 62).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:

February 23, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3