Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 155

ORDER RE: 110 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/7/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

ELIZABETH ANN WILLIAMS,

Case No. 5:13-cv-03387-EJD

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN
LIMINE

9
v.
10
11

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 110

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of nuisance

15

lawsuits against Plaintiff, habitability lawsuits against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s 2009 burglary

16

conviction (Dkt. No. 110). The Court has also reviewed Defendants’ opposition (Dkt. No. 123),

17

Defendants’ supplemental opposition (Dkt. No. 153), and Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 154).

18

During the final pretrial conference on July 25, 2017, counsel for Defendants indicated that

19

they would provide additional evidence (e.g., a plea colloquy) showing that Plaintiff’s burglary

20

conviction was punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (as Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)

21

requires). Defendants have not done so.

22

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion in limine (Dkt. No. 110) because the

23

potential prejudice of evidence of the lawsuits and conviction outweighs its probative value under

24

Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403. The Court finds that there is ambiguity surrounding whether Plaintiff’s

25

conviction was punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. As such, the Court will not

26

admit evidence of the conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1). The Court also finds that there is

27

ambiguity surrounding whether Plaintiff’s burglary conviction involved fraud or deceit, and

28

Case No.: 5:13-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE
1

1

therefore the Court will not admit evidence of the conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(2). See

2

U.S. v. Glenn, 667 F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Generally, crimes of violence, theft crimes,

3

and crimes of stealth do not involve ‘dishonesty or false statement’ within the meaning of rule

4

609(a)(2). . . . [However,] [a] conviction for burglary or theft may nevertheless be admissible

5

under rule 609(a)(2) if the crime was actually committed by fraudulent or deceitful means.”).

6

Should they wish to impeach Plaintiff with the burglary conviction, Defendants may

7

submit additional evidence showing that the burglary conviction is admissible under Fed. R. Evid.

8

609(a)(1) or (a)(2).

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 7, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:13-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE
2