Harmon et al v. Department of Justice et al

Filing 42

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS' PERSONAL ASSETS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION UNTIL A RIGHT TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS ESTABLISHED signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on November 13, 2017. (ECF NO. 36) (Munoz, I)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JOSHUA HARMON and JENEA HARMON, 1:16-cv-00246-LJO-BAM 13 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ PERSONAL ASSETS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION UNTIL A RIGHT TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS ESTABLISHED 14 Plaintiffs, v. 15 Agent MICHAEL HAROLDSEN, individually, and Agent TERESA HANNON, individually, 16 (ECF NO. 36) 17 Defendants. 18 19 This action arises out of the February 3, 2015 search of a residence owned by Plaintiffs Joshua 20 and Jenea Harmon by Defendants California Department of Justice Agents Michael Haroldsen and 21 Teresa Hannon. See generally ECF No. 6 (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiffs bring claims 22 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) alleging Defendants used excessive and unreasonable coercion to 23 elicit Jenea Harmon’s consent to search the home (id. at ¶ 24), and wrongfully detained Jenea Harmon 24 against her will. Id. at ¶¶ 29-31. Plaintiffs also bring related state law claims. Id. at ¶¶ 32-41. Trial is set 25 for November 28, 2017. 1 1 Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against Defendants for the alleged § 1983, false imprisonment, 2 and Bane Act claims. On November 6, 2017, Defendants filed a memorandum requesting that the Court 3 preclude Plaintiffs from introducing evidence of their personal financial conditions, including personal 4 assets, unless and until Plaintiffs establish a right to punitive damages. Plaintiffs have not responded to 5 Defendants’ request.1 Evidence of each Defendant’s personal financial conditions is relevant in this case if, and only if, 6 7 Plaintiffs are able to establish that they are entitled to punitive damages – i.e. if they are able to state a 8 “prima facie case of oppression, fraud, or malice.” 999 v. C.I.T. Corp., 776 F.2d 866, 872-73 (9th Cir. 9 1985). Otherwise, presentation of such evidence would be “distracting and prejudicial.” Id.; see also 10 Fed. R. Evid. 403. Therefore, the request to exclude evidence of Defendants’ personal financial 11 condition unless and until Plaintiffs establish that they are entitled for punitive damages is GRANTED. 12 There will be no mention of “punitive damages” unless and until the jury makes the prerequisite finding. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: 15 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ November 13, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 The Court notes that Defendants “memorandum” is essentially a late-filed pretrial motion. (ECF No. 20.) However, because the Court would have made and granted the requested relief sua sponte in accordance with the applicable law and efficient trial management, the Court has considered the late-filed request. Defendants are admonished to obey all applicable deadlines in the future. 2

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?