Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland

Filing 212

ORDER DENYING OAKLAND'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 197 by Judge Vince Chhabria (vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2018)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND BULK & OVERSIZED TERMINAL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-cv-07014-VC ORDER DENYING OAKLAND'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 Re: Dkt. No. 197 CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant. Cappio's understanding of the meaning of the ordinance might have relevance if it informed the way the City enforced the ordinance, in a case where OBOT was challenging the particular manner in which the ordinance was being enforced. See Hoye v. City of Oakland, 653 F.3d 835, 849-50 (9th Cir. 2011). But OBOT contends the ordinance is unlawful as written or simply may not be applied to OBOT. Therefore, the testimony from Cappio's deposition cited by OBOT in its summary judgment papers seems largely irrelevant. Nonetheless, the City's motion in limine to exclude testimony from Cappio regarding her understanding of the ordinance is denied because this matter is better addressed at trial than on a blanket basis by way of motion in limine. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 9, 2018 ______________________________________ VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

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?