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)

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