Scruggs v. Vance et al

Filing 214

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/11/12 ordering defendants' motion in limine A 202 to exclude billing statements from Atascadero State Hospital is granted without prejudice to plaintiff seeking to introduce particular r ecords and entries related to treatment for the 2004 incident, subject to the standards set forth at the hearing. Defendants' motion in limine B excluding statement of undisputed facts from the ruling on the motion for summary judgment is grant ed. Defendants' motion in limine C regarding CDCR operational procedures and memorandum is submitted until trial. Defendants' motion in limine D, seeking to exclude inmate Robinson from testifying is denied. The court has issued a writ f or the attendance of inmate Robinson at trial. If plaintiff does not oppose having inmate Robinson testify via videoconference, plaintiff shall file such a request no later than 14 days before trial. Defendants' motion in limine E regarding te stimony of plaintiff's medical treaters is partially granted. On direct examination, plaintiff's medical treaters may testify as to opinions formed, or reasonably expected to have been formed during treatment of plaintiff. During direct e xamination, plaintiff's medical treaters may not testify as to causation or opinions formed outside the course of treatment. Defendants' motion in limine F seeks to preserve their right to objection to unforseen ways exhibits may be offere d at trial. This motion is well taken as to both parties; both parties retain their right to so object. Plaintiff's motion in limine I 203 is partially granted. Expert witness Dr. Cheryl Paizis will not testify as set forth in her inital ex pert report [203-6]. Rather, Dr. Paizis may testify without specific attribution to plaintiff as to the following: Paranoid, schizophrenia is a mental disorder that distorts the way a person thinks, perceives reality, and relates to others. It is o ften characterized by psychotic symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations. A person with schizoaffective disorder has psychotic symptoms and a mood disorder such as depression or bipolar disorder. [205-3] Plaintiff's motion to exclude Dr. Paizis testimony as to the general characteristics testimony related to post 2004 incidents (set forth at paragraphs number (2), (3), and (4) of defendants' response (id.)) is granted, without prejudice as to defendants' renewal of the moti on to admit such evidence during trial, based on plaintiff's testimony at trial, as discussed at the hearings on these motions. Plaintiff's motion in limine 2 to exclude the opinions of Anthony Murphy is granted. Plaintiff's motion i n limine 3 to exclude prior convictions and arrests, and the 2007 felonly battery is partially denied. The fact of plaintiff's 1999 conviction may be admissible to the extent defendants relied upon it in making double-celling decisions; evidenc e regarding collateral details of the conviction are excluded unless made relevant by plaintiff's testimony on direct examination. The following statement regarding the 2006 incident that resulted in the 2007 conviction and plaintiff's pla cement in ASH may be adduced at trial: In 2007, plaintiff was convicted for felony battery, unrelated to the incident at issue here, which resulted in plaintiff's placement at Atascadero State Hospital. This statement is admitted for purposes o f impeachment, and te explain that plaintiff's placement at ASH was not based on the 2004 incident at issue here. However, this exclusion is subject to review based on plaintiff's testimony on direct examination. In all other respects, pl aintiff's motion is granted without prejudice to defendants' renewed motion to admit specific evidence based on plaintiff's testimony on direct examination. Finally, plaintiff's motion in limine 4 to exclude plaintiff's rule s violations reports is partially granted. The actual records from the rules violations will no be provided to the jury. The admissibility of the facts of the rules violations is submitted until trial. For example, the fact of pre-2004 rules violations may be admissible to the extent defendants relied upon them in making double-celling decisions.(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ARTAY SCRUGGS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:06-cv-0633 KJN P

S. VANCE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is proceeding through counsel. All parties have consented to proceed

17

before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The parties’ motions in limine

18

came on for hearing on June 11, 2012. As discussed during the hearing, IT IS HEREBY

19

ORDERED that:

20

1. Defendants’ motion in limine “A” (dkt. no. 202), to exclude billing statements

21

from Atascadero State Hospital (“ASH”), is granted without prejudice to plaintiff seeking to

22

introduce particular records and entries related to treatment for the 2004 incident, subject to the

23

standards set forth at the hearing.

24

2. Defendants’ motion in limine “B” excluding the statement of undisputed facts

25

from the ruling on the motion for summary judgment is granted.

26

////
1

1
2

3. Defendants’ motion in limine “C” regarding CDCR operational procedures and
memorandum is submitted until trial.

3

4. Defendants’ motion in limine “D,” seeking to exclude inmate Robinson from

4

testifying, is denied. The court has issued a writ for the attendance of inmate Robinson at trial.

5

If plaintiff does not oppose having inmate Robinson testify via videoconference, plaintiff shall

6

file such a request no later than fourteen days before trial.

7

5. Defendants’ motion in limine “E” regarding testimony by plaintiff’s medical

8

treaters is partially granted. On direct examination, plaintiff’s medical treaters may testify as to

9

opinions formed, or reasonably expected to have been formed, during treatment of plaintiff.1

10

During direct examination, plaintiff’s medical treaters may not testify as to causation or opinions

11

formed outside the course of treatment.2

12

6. Defendants’ motion in limine “F” seeks to preserve their right to object to

13

unforeseen ways exhibits might be offered at trial. This motion is well taken as to both parties;

14

both parties retain their right to so object.

15

7. Plaintiff’s motion in limine “1” (dkt. no. 203) is partially granted. Expert

16

witness Dr. Cheryl Paizis will not testify as set forth in her initial expert report (dkt. no. 203-6).

17

Rather, Dr. Paizis may testify, without specific attribution to plaintiff, as to the following:

18

Paranoid schizophrenia is a mental disorder that distorts the way a
person thinks, perceives reality, and relates to others. It is often
characterized by psychotic symptoms such as delusions and
hallucinations. A person with schizoaffective disorder has
psychotic symptoms and a mood disorder such as depression or
bipolar disorder.

19
20
21
22

(Dkt. No. 205 at 3.) Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Dr. Paizis’ testimony as to the general

23
24
25

1

If plaintiff is unable to meet with the medical treaters prior to trial, counsel may show
the providers portions of medical records in an attempt to refresh their recollections.
2

26

The parties have agreed that on cross-examination and rebuttal, plaintiff can offer the
medical treaters’ post-treatment opinions.
2

1

characteristics testimony related to post 2004 incidents (set forth at paragraphs numbered (2), (3),

2

and (4) of defendants’ response (id.)), is granted, without prejudice to defendants’ renewal of the

3

motion to admit such evidence during trial, based on plaintiff’s testimony at trial, as discussed at

4

the hearing on these motions.

5
6

8. Plaintiff’s motion in limine “2” to exclude the opinions of Anthony Murphy is
granted.

7

9. Plaintiff’s motion in limine “3” to exclude prior convictions and arrests, and

8

the 2007 felony battery, is partially denied. The fact of plaintiff’s 1999 conviction may be

9

admissible to the extent defendants relied upon it in making double-celling decisions; evidence

10

regarding collateral details of the conviction are excluded unless made relevant by plaintiff’s

11

testimony on direct examination. The following statement regarding the 2006 incident that

12

resulted in the 2007 conviction and plaintiff’s placement in ASH may be adduced at trial:

13
14

In 2007, plaintiff was convicted for felony battery, unrelated to the
incident at issue here, which resulted in plaintiff’s placement at
Atascadero State Hospital.

15

This statement is admitted for purposes of impeachment, and to explain that plaintiff’s placement

16

at ASH was not based on the 2004 incident at issue here. However, this exclusion is subject to

17

review based on plaintiff’s testimony on direct examination.

18

In all other respects, plaintiff’s motion is granted, without prejudice to defendants’

19

renewed motion to admit specific evidence based on plaintiff’s testimony on direct examination.

20

10. Finally, plaintiff’s motion in limine “4” to exclude plaintiff’s rules violations

21

reports is partially granted. The actual records from the rules violations will not be provided to

22

the jury. The admissibility of the facts of the rules violations is submitted until trial. For

23

////

24

////

25

////

26

////
3

1

example, the fact of pre-2004 rules violations may be admissible to the extent defendants relied

2

upon them in making double-celling decisions.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 11, 2012

5
6

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8

scru0633.mil

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4