Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland
ORDER DENYING OAKLAND'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 197 by Judge Vince Chhabria (vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2018)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND BULK & OVERSIZED
Case No. 16-cv-07014-VC
ORDER DENYING OAKLAND'S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
Re: Dkt. No. 197
CITY OF OAKLAND,
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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2018
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?