Diaz et al v. DAWS Manufacturing Company, Inc et al

Filing 154

FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/13/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JESUS CORTES DIAZ, et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-05325-EJD Plaintiffs, 9 FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE v. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 DAWS MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 The Court rules on the parties’ motions in limine as follows: 15 1. Plaintiffs’ fourth motion to exclude evidence of James Francis Lee’s intoxication 16 (Dkt. No. 124) is GRANTED. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if: “(a) it 17 has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and 18 (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, 19 relevant evidence can be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger 20 of . . . unfair prejudice,” or “confusing the issues,” or if it misleads the jury, causes undue delay, or 21 wastes time. The Court finds that the prejudicial effect of evidence of Lee’s intoxication 22 outweighs its probative value. 23 2. Plaintiffs’ sixth motion to exclude evidence or argument that there can only be one 24 cause of an accident (Dkt. No.126) is DENIED. It would be highly prejudicial to prevent 25 Defendants from arguing that Lee was the sole cause of the injuries at issue, and there is little risk 26 that the jury will believe that an accident can only have a single cause (particularly in light of 27 Defendants’ jury instructions indicating that an accident can have more than one cause). 28 Case No.: 5:12-cv-05325-EJD FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1 1 2 3 3. Defendant Daws Manufacturing Company Inc.’s second motion to exclude arguments in favor of punitive damages (Dkt. No. 128) is DENIED. 4. Defendant Daws’s sixth motion to exclude graphic photographs (Dkt. No. 132) is 4 GRANTED. Before a party may introduce photographic evidence, that party must present the 5 evidence to the Court for review and approval. 6 5. The following unopposed motions are GRANTED: a. Plaintiffs’ first (Dkt. No. 121), second (Dkt. No. 122), third (Dkt. No. 123), and 7 fifth (Dkt. No. 125) motions; 8 b. Defendant Daws’s third (Dkt. No. 129), fourth (Dkt. No. 130), fifth (Dkt. No. 9 131), eighth (Dkt. No. 134), ninth (Dkt. No. 135), tenth (Dkt. No. 136), and 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 eleventh (Dkt. No. 138) motions; and c. Defendants’ joint first (Dkt. No. 143) and second (Dkt. no. 144) motions. 12 13 14 6. The Court does not presently decide Defendant Daws’s first (Dkt. No. 127) and seventh (Dkt. No. 133) motions. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 13, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:12-cv-05325-EJD FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 2

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?