Golden v. Feudner et al

Filing 89

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/22/12; Since Defendant has shown that Plaintiff's diagram does not accurately depict the prison yard in certain respects, and Plaintiff can testify concerning its contents, the diagram is excluded under Rule 403. Therefore, this in limine motion is GRANTED. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Edwin Golden,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

10

S. Feudner,

11

Defendant.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:08-cv-00356-GEB-DAD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE

12
Defendant moves in limine for an order seeking to preclude the

13
14

admission

15

addressed below.

16

of

certain

evidence

at

trial.

Defendant’s

motions

are

Motion in Limine No. 1

17

Defendant seeks to exclude the interrogatories and requests

18

for admission which Plaintiff included in the body of his Pretrial

19

Statement filed on September 9, 2011, stating, although “the requests

20

read as if they were directed at Defendant Feudner, . . . [he] never

21

provided the responses listed.” (Def.’s Mot. in Limine to Preclude

22

Purported Disc. Resps. 1:22-26.)

23

“appear to have been manufactured by Plaintiff based on the testimony he

24

thinks would best support his case,” and “thus, objects to any use of

25

these requests by Plaintiff at trial.” Id. at 1:26-2:3.

Defendant states that the responses

26

Since it is uncontroverted that the discovery requests and

27

responses included as part of Plaintiff’s Pretrial Statement were not a

28
1

1

part of the discovery conducted in this action, this motion in limine is

2

GRANTED.

3

Motion in Limine No. 2

4

Defendant also seeks to preclude Plaintiff from using at trial

5

the “diagram of the prison yard,” which Plaintiff attached as an exhibit

6

to his September 9, 2011, Pretrial Statement. (Def.’s Mot. in Limine to

7

Preclude Pl. from Using at Trial Pl.’s Diagram 1:25-2:3.) Defendant

8

argues the diagram “is not a fair and accurate representation of the

9

prison yard, will not help the trier of fact understand the evidence,

10

and will confuse and mislead the jury.” Id. Specifically, Defendant

11

contends in relevant part:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

The diagram is not drawn to scale but rather is
scaled to fit perfectly within the 8½ by 11 inch
sheet of paper on which it is drawn. The diagram
depicts only a single column down the left side of
the page, which is labeled as an inmate walkway. To
the left of the column reads staff walkway marked
out of bounds. The names of various buildings are
placed around the outer edges on all four sides of
the page, but no buildings actually are drawn on
the diagram. The diagram fails to indicate where
the entrance to medical/education area is. The
words “concrete bench” are written on the far edge
of the column labeled as the inmate walkway, but no
bench is actually drawn. Simply put, the diagram is
too confusing to help the trier of fact understand
the evidence.

20
21
22
23

The diagram also is pre-marked “June 15, 2007
incident” with an arrow pointing to this text that
reads “occurred on the prison yard.” But, whether
this area was designated as “out of bounds” is not
at issue. That is, Defendant does not dispute that
the area at issue in this action was not within the
area designated by the prison as “out of bounds.”

24
25

Id. at 2:18-3:4. Defendant also argues, “[b]ecause Plaintiff can testify

26

as to where he was on the yard, and that that location was not out of

27

bounds, the diagram also would waste time, and needlessly present

28

cumulative evidence.” Id. at 3:13-15.
2

1

The use of demonstrative evidence “is committed to the trial

2

court’s discretion, and should only be allowed where [it] serve[s] to

3

assist the jury in understanding and judging the factual controversy.”

4

United States v. White, 766 F.2d 22, 25 (1st Cir. 1985). Further,

5

“demonstrative evidence is subject to [Rule] 403 and should be excluded

6

if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of

7

unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.”

8

United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236, 1250 (11th Cir. 2009).

9

Since Defendant has shown that Plaintiff’s diagram does not

10

accurately depict the prison yard in certain respects, and Plaintiff can

11

testify concerning its contents, the diagram is excluded under Rule 403.

12

Therefore, this in limine motion is GRANTED.

13

Dated:

February 22, 2012

14
15
16

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3