Berbereia, et al. v. County of Kings, et al.

Filing 49

RDER ON COUNSELS' STIPULATIONS RE: TRIAL EVIDENCE signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on May 7, 2018. Doc. 45(Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

STACEY BERBEREIA, individually and on )
behalf of the ESTATE OF ALBERT
)
HANSON, JR., DANIEL HANSON, and
)
KIMBERLY NIZ,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTY OF KINGS; DEPUTY TAYLOR )
LOPES; DETECTIVE MARIUS
)
BARSTECEANU; DEPUTY THOMAS
)
OLSON; UNKNOWN LAW
)
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS,
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 1:16-CV-00363-LJO-SKO
ORDER ON COUNSELS’ STIPULATIONS
RE: TRIAL EVIDENCE

Doc. 45

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The Court has received and reviewed Counsels’ Stipulations regarding Trial Evidence
(Doc. 45). The Court grants the implied request that the stipulations become Orders of the
Court, save and except:
11)

To preclude any mention to the jury of the legal defense of qualified immunity

except as it may pertain to possible jury instructions, interrogatories or special verdict.
The Court is not certain of the parameters that are being placed on the mention of the
legal defense of qualified immunity. In permitting an exception to discussions in front of the
jury concerning interrogatories, once mentioned, the door would be open. If counsel are
anticipating that the term of qualified immunity is to be included in jury instructions and the

28

1

1

special verdict, how do counsel plan to make certain there is no mention of the concept during

2

the presentation of evidence?

3

16)

4

Are counsel suggesting that there be no mention of the term “punitive damages” until

5

To bifurcate trial as to the amount, but not the entitlement, to punitive damages.

and unless there are the prerequisite factual findings made by the jury?

6

21)

7

The permissibility of counsel voir dire is not a proper matter for stipulations. This is a

8

matter within the discretion of the Court. Counsel should take advantage of the opportunity to

9

submit written proposed voir dire questions, that, in the discretion of the Court may be asked.

10

If the Parties wish to stipulate in an effort to clarify either of the first two issues

11

discussed above, any such stipulation must be resubmitted no later than five (5) court days from

12

To permit at least 1 hour of voir dire per side.

the date of this Order.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 7, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2