Arden v. Kastell et al

Filing 127

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 10/1/2014. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11 GARY ARDEN,
12
13

Case No. 10-cv-00436 NC
Plaintiff,

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTIONS
IN LIMINE

v.

14 FRANK KASTELL
15

Re: Dkt. Nos. 110-115, 118, 119

Defendant.

16
17

Gary Arden sues Detective Frank Kastell under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the

18 detective violated his due process rights by falsifying a police report, causing Arden to be
19 prosecuted. This order sets forth the Court’s tentative rulings on the evidentiary motions in
20 limine filed before the jury trial. The Court will issue final orders on the motions after the
21 pretrial conference.
22

1. Arden MIL1A, Dkt. No. 115: to preclude defendant’s expert witness Scott Seaman

23 from offering trial testimony about his observations of the SFO Surveillance Videos,
24 because his opinions have not been disclosed.
25

ORDER: DENIED. Kastell has provided evidence that Seaman was deposed about

26 his observations of the videos. Seaman may testify within the confines of his deposition
27 testimony.
28

2. Arden MIL1B, Dkt. No. 115: to preclude expert witness Seaman from offering
Case No. 10-cv-00436 NC
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1 opinion about his inability to view the surveillance videos before his deposition.
2

ORDER: GRANTED, as unopposed. Seaman may not opine on any technical

3 difficulties he had viewing the videos.
4

3. Arden MIL2, Dkt. No. 115: to preclude witness Jeff Pugh of Covenant Security

5 from providing speculative opinion testimony about Arden’s promotion history at
6 Covenant.
7

ORDER: DENIED, without prejudice to objecting to specific questions at trial. The

8 Court is not convinced at this stage that Pugh’s expected testimony is speculative or lacks
9 foundation.
10

4. Kastell MIL1, Dkt. No. 110: to preclude expert witness Joseph Solga from

11 offering any new opinions not previously disclosed.
12

ORDER: GRANTED, as unopposed.

13

5. Kastell MIL2, Dkt. No. 111: to preclude evidence of speculative damages

14 concerning Arden’s work history at Covenant Security.
15

ORDER: DENIED, without prejudice to objecting to specific questions at trial. The

16 Court is not convinced at this stage that Arden’s expected testimony about his work history
17 at Covenant is speculative or lacks foundation.
18

6. Kastell MIL3, Dkt. No. 112: to preclude evidence of Kastell’s assets unless the

19 jury renders a verdict entitling an award of punitive damages.
20

ORDER: GRANTED, as unopposed.

21

7. Kastell MIL4, Dkt. No. 113: to preclude evidence of prior prosecutions of Arden’s

22 co-workers for embezzlement.
23

ORDER: GRANTED. Prior investigations and prosecutions that had no connection

24 to Arden are not relevant, and any probative value would be outweighed by jury confusion.
25 The Court is not persuaded by Arden’s assertion that Kastell’s “investigative skills” are
26 relevant to this trial. Dkt. No. 121.
27

8. Kastell MIL5, Dkt. No. 114: to preclude evidence of Feb. 2, 2009 SFO

28 surveillance video.
Case No. 10-cv-00436 NC
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

2

1

OR
RDER: DE
ENIED. Kastell argues that the Fe
s
ebruary 2 vi
ideo is irrel
levant and l
likely

use
e
ment
ge
Arden is bas on Kaste
sed
ell’s
2 to confu the jury because the embezzlem charg against A
y
gation. The events of February 2, however, a referenc in Kaste
e
F
are
ced
ell’s
3 February 3 investig
e
h
as
e
n
2.
more, the video
4 report, even though Kastell wa not at the airport on February 2 Furtherm
orroborate witness testi
w
imony. On the other h
n
hand, the Co is conc
ourt
cerned abou the
ut
5 could co
ttention to hours and hours of secu
h
h
urity video and questio if all 1.5 hours is
ons
6 jury’s at
d,
bruary 3 sec
curity video
o.
7 required in addition to the Feb

8

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

9

Date: Octobe 1, 2014
er

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

10
0
11
1
12
2
13
3
14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 10-cv-0043 NC
36
ORDER ON MOTIO
R
ONS IN LIM
MINE

3