Nava v. Seadler et al

Filing 140

ORDER FOLLOWING FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, re 125 and 133 and Motions in Limine 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 132 by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal.(psglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

SAN JOSE DIVISION
NANCY NAVA,
v.
MIKE SEADLER,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: C 08-3066 PSG
ORDER FOLLOWING FINAL
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
(Re: Docket Nos. 125, 127, 128, 129, 130,
132, 133)

Pending before the court are the parties‟ motions in limine. On August 2, 2011, the parties

17

appeared for a final pretrial conference and oral argument on the motions. The court finds as

18

follows.

19

Defendants‟ Motion In Limine No. 1: Defendants move to exclude evidence of prior

20

internal affairs investigations and personnel records. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion. IT IS

21
22
23

HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
Defendants‟ Motion In Limine No. 2: Defendants move to exclude evidence of settlement

24

discussions or events surrounding the early neutral evaluation. Plaintiff has not opposed this

25

motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

26
27

Defendants‟ Motion In Limine No. 3: Defendants move to exclude evidence relating to
events involving Defendant Mike Seadler‟s (“Seadler”) spouse as irrelevant. Plaintiff argues that

28
Case No.: 08-3066 PSG
ORDER

1

1

Seadler‟s untruthful deposition testimony regarding events that involve his spouse are probative of

2

his credibility as a witness.1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as to the use

3

of this evidence to impeach Seadler as a witness regarding the specific instance of his giving

4

untruthful deposition testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) and GRANTED as to all other uses.

5
6
7
8

Defendants‟ Motion In Limine No. 4: Defendants move to exclude references to the motion
for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
the motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff‟s Motion In Limine No. 1: Plaintiff moves to exclude evidence of her former

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

conviction for welfare fraud that occurred more than thirty-one years ago as irrelevant and not

11

permitted under Rule 608 or Rule 609. Defendants argue that Plaintiff‟s prior police encounters,

12

especially her welfare fraud conviction, are relevant to (1) her bias and motive in bringing this

13
14
15
16

lawsuit; (2) whether the September 18, 2007 encounter caused her emotional trauma, fear of police
retribution, and other damages Plaintiff is claiming; (3) impeach her deposition testimony that she
had never been arrested; and (4) impeach her credibility because the conviction involved an act of

17

dishonesty or false statement. This evidence is relevant at least to the existence or cause of Nava‟s

18

claimed emotional distress.2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court adopts the July 22, 2011 Joint Pretrial

20

Conference Statement as the final pretrial order.

21

1

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

See Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) (On cross-examination, a witness may be asked about specific instances
of conduct that are relevant to the witness‟s character for veracity).
2

See, e.g., Gribben v. City of Summit, No. 08 C 0123, 2010 WL 2928094, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 20,
2010) (denying motion in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff‟s prior convictions or arrests
because “if presented with evidence that [plaintiff] had been arrested and incarcerated numerous
times in the past, the jury could conclude that [plaintiff] would not have been as emotionally
traumatized by the arrest [at issue] as he claims to have been” and the evidence‟s probative value is
not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice); Redmond v. City of Chi., No. 06 C
3611, 2008 WL 539164, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2008) (denying motion in limine to exclude
evidence of plaintiff‟s prior convictions or arrests because “if [plaintiff] had been arrested on prior
occasions the trier of fact could conclude from such evidence that [plaintiff] would not have been
as emotionally traumatized by the [arrest at issue] as he claims since he had already experienced
the arrest process on prior occasions” and the evidence‟s probative value is not substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice).
Case No.: 08-3066 PSG
ORDER

2

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court permits Plaintiff to use Plaintiff‟s Supplemental

2

Voir Dire Questions during his voir dire to the jury, with the exception of the following proposed

3

questions: “When do you think a police office should be allowed to violate a citizen‟s

4

constitutional rights?” and “„The Constitution only protects the guilty.‟ Do you agree with this?

5

Why or why not?”

6
7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will select the appropriate jury instructions and
jury verdict form at trial.
Dated: August 2, 2011

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 08-3066 PSG
ORDER

3