Burns v. City of Redwood City et al
Filing
154
ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/13/11.(rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2011)
*E-Filed 5/13/11*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
8
12
DOUGLAS BURNS,
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
No. C 08-2995 RS
ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE
v.
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, et al.,
16
17
Defendants.
____________________________________/
18
19
20
Plaintiff Burns’ motions in limine are resolved as follows:
1. Motion to Exclude Evidence, Comment or Argument Re: Insurance or Other Collateral
21
22
Source Payments.
Granted. See, e.g., Greer v. Buzgheia, 141 Cal. App. 4th 1150, 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)
23
(“Nishihama and Hanif stand for the principle that it is error for the plaintiff to recover medical
24
expenses in excess of the amount paid or incurred. Neither case, however, holds that evidence of
25
the reasonable cost of medical care may not be admitted. Indeed, Nishihama suggests just the
26
opposite: Such evidence gives the jury a more complete picture of the extent of a plaintiff's
27
injuries.”)
28
NO. C 08-2995 RS
ORDER
1
2. Motion to Exclude Evidence, Comment or Argument Re: Burns’ Prior Arrest or
2
Detention, or Other “Bad Acts” Evidence While He was Experiencing Hypoglycemic
3
Events.
4
Granted in part, denied in part. Defendants are foreclosed from mentioning payment of child
5
support, details of Burns’ and Lenci’s divorce and custody proceedings, or prior arrests, as the
6
probative value of this evidence is outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice. Otherwise, the
7
motion is denied to the extent it requested exclusion of reference to all prior hypoglycemic events
8
experienced by Burns.
9
Events and Diabetic Emergencies.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
3. Motion to Exclude Evidence, Comment or Argument Re: Plaintiff’s Prior Hypoglycemic
Denied, except that the same prohibitions discussed above apply.
12
4. Motion to Exclude Ex Wife Cheryl Lenci, and Evidence, Comment or Argument
13
14
Concerning Any of Her Allegations.
Although the same prohibitions discussed above apply, Lenci may testify as a percipient
15
witness regarding her first hand perception of Burns’ reactions to hypoglycemic events, as well as to
16
what Burns told her about his medical bracelet on the night of the incident.
17
5. Motion to Exclude Evidence, Comment or Argument Re: Burns’ Prior Steriod Use.
18
Granted.
19
6. Motion to Exclude Defendants’ Expert Xitco, her Undisclosed Data Summaries, and All
20
Evidence, Comment or Argument Re: Her Report.
21
Denied.
22
7. Motion to Exclude Defendants’ Undisclosed Witnesses.
23
The motion is granted as to Chief Hernandez but denied as to Officer Clements.
24
25
26
27
Defendants’ motions in limine are resolved as follows:
1. Motion to Exclude Roger Clark From Giving Testimony Outside His Expertise As Well As
Matters Not Relevant to the Case.
NO. C 08-2995 RS
ORDER
28
2
1
2
3
4
Denied, although Clark shall be precluded from testifying to ultimate issues such as Burns’
criminal intent or whether the officers employed excessive force.
2. Motion to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Re: Speculative Damages for Loss of Internet
Startup.
5
Denied.
6
3. Motion to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Re: Documentation of the Use of Force.
7
Denied.
8
4. Motion to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Re: Arrest or Criminal Prosecution.
9
Granted, with respect to issuance of citations and prosecution history, but otherwise denied.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
5. Motion to Exclude Testimony or Argument Re: Equal Protection Claims (or Arguments that
this Case is About the Safety of American Diabetics).
12
Granted.
13
6. Motion to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Re: the Escobedo Case (another excessive force
14
case brought against the RCPD).
15
Granted.
16
7. Motion to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Re: Miranda Warnings.
17
Granted.
18
8. Motion to Exclude Testimony of Ian Lee, or to Limit Such Testimony.
19
20
21
22
Granted; defendants will stipulate to Burns’ blood sugar level as recorded on the night of the
incident.
9. Motion to Exclude Hearsay Testimony Re: Dart Board and Statements By Officer From
Another District.
23
Granted.
24
10. Motion to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Re: Emotional Distress of Burns’ Children.
25
Plaintiff did not oppose this motion and it is granted.
26
11. Motion to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Re: Potential Effect of Delay in Treating Insulin
27
Shock.
NO. C 08-2995 RS
ORDER
28
3
1
2
3
Granted, to the extent that plaintiff may not suggest the delay impacted his physical health.
Burns may offer evidence as to his perception of delay in receiving treatment.
12. Motion to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Re: Medical Experts or Providers of Opinions on
4
Proper Police Practices.
5
Granted, to the extent that plaintiff may not elicit testimony as to training that occurred after
6
7
the incident, but otherwise denied.
13. Motion to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Re: Training That Could Have Been Done to
8
Identify Individuals Suffering From Hypoglycemia.
9
Granted. Plaintiff may introduce evidence as to the training the officers did receive, but may
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
not refer to training that occurred after the incident.
14. Motion to Exclude the Video Deposition of Steven Edelman.
Denied, without prejudice. In the invent plaintiff seeks to introduce Edelman’s video
testimony, defendants may renew the objection.
14
15. Supplemental Motion to Amend Witness List and Exhibit List to include Redwood City
15
Firefighter / Paramedic Paul Sherwood and his Incident Report and Pre-hospital Care
16
Report.
17
18
Granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
21
Dated: 5/13/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
NO. C 08-2995 RS
ORDER
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?