Cohea v. Pliler, et al

Filing 310

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 7/17/15 ORDERING that the Motions in Limine No. 1-2 298 , 299 lack the preciseness and sufficient factual context required for a pretrial in limine ruling. The Motions in Limine No. 1-3 300 are DENIED; and the Motions in Limine No. 4-5 300 are GRANTED. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

9

12
13

2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff,

10
11

No.

v.

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

J. COLVIN, D. McCARGAR, S.L.
BAUGHMAN, M.A. MICHEELS, R
YAMAMOTO, SD AKIN, D. ADAMS,
A GOLD, and S. SCARSELLA,
Defendants.

14
15
16

Defendants move in limine (“MIL”) for a pretrial order

17

precluding the admission of certain evidence at trial. Plaintiff

18

did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to any

19

MIL. Each MIL is addressed below.
A.

20
21

Defendants

Adams,

Akin,

Baughman,

Colvin,

Gold,

Baughman,

Colvin,

Gold,

McCargar, Micheels, and Yamamoto’s MILs

22

MIL No. 1

23

Defendants

Adams,

Akin,

24

McCargar, Micheels, and Yamamoto (collectively referred to as

25

“Defendants”) “request an order precluding Plaintiff . . . from

26

testifying

27

interference with Plaintiff’s access to the law library at CSP-

28

Sac

and

about

(2)

his

or

otherwise

ability

to

mentioning

pursue
1

a

or

habeas

referencing

corpus

(1)

action.”

1

(Defs.’

2

“Plaintiff’s First Amendment, ‘access to court’ claims have been

3

dismissed. . . . Consequently, evidence of law library access and

4

Plaintiff’s

5

inadmissible.” (Id. at 3:16-17, 3:25-26.) Defendants also argue

6

“[s]uch evidence should . . . be excluded” under Federal Rule of

7

Evidence (“Rule”) 403. (Id. at 4:4-6.)

MIL

8

No.

1

2:12-14,

habeas

This

ECF

corpus

motion

No.

298.)

action

lacks

the

are

Defendants

[irrelevant

preciseness

and

argue

and]

sufficient

9

factual context required for a pretrial in limine ruling. See,

10

e.g., Weiss v. La Suisse, Soc’y D’Assurances Sur La Vie, 293 F.

11

Supp. 2d 397, 407-08 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (denying motion to exclude

12

evidence

13

particular documents or testimony have been identified in the

14

motion”); Colton Crane Co., LLC v. Terex Cranes Wilmington, Inc.,

15

No. CV 08-8525 PSG (PJWx), 2010 WL 2035800, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May

16

19,

17

exclude broad categories of evidence, as the court is almost

18

always better situated to rule on evidentiary issues in their

19

factual context during trial”).

2010)

for

a

“lack[]

(stating

of

“motions

specificity[,]”

in

limine

should

stating

rarely

“[n]o

seek

to

20

MIL No. 2

21

Defendants “seek an order in limine barring Plaintiff

22

from

23

Defendants[,]” arguing such evidence is irrelevant and should be

24

excluded

25

preserved for trial.” (Defs.’ MIL No. 2 2:7-12, 3:16, 3:19-23,

26

ECF No. 299.)

27
28

introducing

under

This

evidence

Rule

403

motion

of

since

lacks

[a]

conspiracy

“conspiracy

the

[i]s

preciseness

between

not

and

claim

sufficient

factual context required for a pretrial in limine ruling.
2

a

the

1

B.

Defendant Scarsella’s MILs

2

MIL No. 1

3

Defendant Scarsella (“Scarsella”) “moves for an order

4

excluding

the

5

reference to prior settlement discussions between the parties in

6

this

7

negotiations is specifically prohibited by [Rule] 408.”

8

Scarsella’s MILs 2:27-3:10, ECF No. 300.)

case[,]”

9

introduction

arguing

“any

of

any

reference

evidence,

to

argument,

settlement

offers

or

or

(Def.

This in limine motion is GRANTED.

10

MIL No. 2

11

Scarsella “moves for an order excluding the use of any

12

exhibits identified by Plaintiff due to his failure to exchange

13

copies of his exhibits as required by the final pretrial order.”

14

(Id. at 3:12-14.) Scarsella argues that Defendant’s “failure to

15

exchange his exhibits . . . has . . . prejudiced [him] insofar as

16

he cannot file objections or motions in limine to the same.”

17

(Id. at 3:14-16.)

18

Scarsella
is

an

has

not

appropriate

shown

pretrial

20

timely

21

Plaintiff’s categories of trial exhibits consist of “[a]ll [Rules

22

Violation Reports (“RVRs”)] related to this case,” and “[a]ll

23

grievances related to this case.” (Pretrial Order 17:11-12, ECF

24

No. 255.) Defendants also identified these documents as trial

25

exhibits. (Id. at 18:2-8, 18:25-19:5.) Therefore, Scarsella has

26

not shown why he would be prejudiced by their admission even if

27

they were not exchanged in advance of trial.

trial

exhibits.

28
3

Plaintiff’s

exclusion

ruling

his

for

a

19

exchange

sanction

that

For

failure

example,

two

to
of

1
2

For

the

stated

reasons,

this

in

limine

motion

is

DENIED.

3

MIL No. 3

4

Scarsella “moves for an order precluding any opinion

5

testimony from Susan Christian, Esq. whom Plaintiff identified in

6

his

7

particularly

8

whether defendants actions constituted a denial of access to the

9

courts

pretrial

as

statement
an

order

alleged

by

as

an

expert

precluding

her

Plaintiff.”

witness
from

and/or

testifying

(Scarsella’s

MILs

more
as

to

4:18-22.)

10

Scarsella argues her testimony should be excluded under Federal

11

Rule

12

properly disclose her as an expert witness. (Id. at 5:12-18.)

of

13

Civil

Procedure

37(c)(1)

since

Plaintiff

failed

to

Scarsella has not shown that a pretrial decision on

14

this

in

limine

motion

15

Plaintiff’s

16

unincarcerated witnesses, including Susan Christian. (See Order

17

8:10-20, 9:1-3, June 5, 2015, ECF No. 276; Order Denying Pl.’s

18

Mot. Recons., ECF No. 295.)

motion

to

is

necessary

secure

the

since

the

Court

denied

of

certain

attendance

19

MIL No. 4

20

Scarsella “moves for an order excluding all witnesses

21

from

the

courtroom

during

trial”

under

22

exception of Plaintiff and the individually named defendants.”

23

(Scarsella’s MILs 5:24-6:4.)

24

Scarsella

“with

the

MIL No. 5

26

615

This in limine motion is GRANTED.

25

Rule

of

any

“moves

for

evidence,

an

order
or

reference

the

27

introduction

28

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)
4

argument,

excluding

to

1

agreeing to defend Mr. Scarsella and indemnify him against any

2

compensatory damages awarded in this matter[,]” arguing “CDCR’s

3

indemnification

4

liability, damages, or any other aspect of the case[,]” and “such

5

information prejudices Mr. Scarsella, because the jury may be

6

more

7

California, a faceless and ostensibly wealthy state, is footing

8

the bill.” (Id. at 6:6-18.)

9
10

willing

is

to

not

find

relevant

against

because

him

if

This in limine motion is GRANTED.
Dated:

July 17, 2015

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

it

they

does

not

understand

affect

that