Murrieta v. Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER ON PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE 33 & 34 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/25/2017. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CATHERINE MURRIETA,
Plaintiff,

9

v.

10
11

Case No. 1:16-cv-01552-SKO
ORDER ON PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN
LIMINE
(Docs. 33 & 34)

CORRECTIONS OFFICER A. HANSEN, and
CORRECTIONS OFFICER HIGHTOWER,

12
13
14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
16

The Court conducted a hearing on the parties’ Motions in Limine on October 25, 2017.

17 Plaintiff Catherine Murrieta (“Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff Murrieta”) appeared telephonically through
18 her counsel Greg Garrotto, Esq. Defendants Corrections Officer Angela Hansen (“Defendant
19 Hansen” or “Officer Hansen”) and Corrections Officer Priscilla Hightower (“Defendant
20 Hightower” or “Officer Hightower”) (collectively “Defendants”) appeared telephonically through
21 their counsel Deputy Attorney General Diana Esquivel, Esq.
22 A.

Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine

23

As set forth on the record in open court, the ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (“MIL”)

24 (Doc. 33) is as follows: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MIL to the extent Plaintiff requests the
25 exclusion of (1) the documents identified in Defendants’ First Supplemental Initial Disclosures
26 and Pretrial Disclosures and (2) the documents identified in Defendants’ Second Supplemental
27 Initial Disclosures and First Supplemental Pretrial Disclosures. The Court DENIES the remainder
28 of Plaintiff’s MIL.

1 B.

Defendant’s Motions in Limine

2

As set forth on the record in open court, the rulings on Defendants’ Motions in Limine

3 (“MIL”) (Doc. 34) are as follows:
4

1.

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ MIL No. 1, (Doc. 34 at 1–2), to the extent

5 Plaintiff or her witnesses seek to give scientific or medical opinions or interpret medical records
6 that require expert testimony or specialized knowledge within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702. The
7 Court DENIES the remainder of Defendants’ MIL No. 1.
8

2.

The Court DEFERS ruling on Defendants’ MIL No. 2, (Doc. 34 at 2–3), until trial.

9

3.

The Court DEFERS ruling on Defendants’ MIL No. 3, (Doc. 34 at 3–5), until trial.

10

4.

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ MIL No. 4, (Doc. 34 at 5–7), to the extent to the

11 extent Plaintiff elicits evidence or argues at trial that Defendants were improperly or inadequately
12 trained on unclothed body searches as a theory of liability. The Court DENIES the remainder of
13 Defendants’ MIL No. 4.
14

5.

The Court DEFERS ruling on Defendants’ MIL No. 5, (Doc. 34 at 7–8), until trial.

15

6.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ MIL No. 6, (Doc. 34 at 8), WITHOUT

16 PREJUDICE AS MOOT.
17

7.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ MIL No. 7, (Doc. 34 at 8–9), WITHOUT

18 PREJUDICE AS MOOT.
19

8.

The Court DEFERS ruling on Defendants’ MIL No. 8 (Doc. 34 at 9–14.) The

20 parties are ORDERED to meet and confer in an effort to agree upon a stipulation as to the
21 condition of the pants Plaintiff wore on June 18, 2016, the date of the incident (the “Pants”). By
22 no later than 12:00 P.M. on October 26, 2017, the parties SHALL advise the Court as to whether
23 they have stipulated to that issue. In the event that the parties are unable to stipulate, by no later
24 than 12:00 P.M on October 27, 2017, Plaintiff, with the assistance of her counsel, is ORDERED to
25 complete a diligent search for the Pants in the receptacles Plaintiff identified in her deposition
26 taken April 5, 2017, see Doc. 34-2 at 105:25–108 (the “Receptacles”). Upon completion of such
27 search of the Receptacles for the Pants, Plaintiff SHALL advise Defendants as to whether the
28 Pants have been located, and, if so, produce the Pants to Defendants for inspection. (See Doc. 342

1 2 at 105:25–108.)

If, after Plaintiff’s search, the Pants have not been located, Plaintiff is

2 ORDERED to make the Receptacles available to Defendants for inspection to conduct their own
3 search for the Pants.
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated:
7

October 25, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.