Campbell et al v. City of Milpitas et al

Filing 118

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/20/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

SHANNON CAMPBELL, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-03817-BLF

Plaintiffs,
9
v.

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

10
11

CITY OF MILPITAS, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
Defendants have submitted four Motions in Limine. Plaintiffs have not submitted any

14
15

Motions in Limine, nor have they submitted written opposition to Defendants’ motions prior to the

16

expiration of the time allowed. In accordance with the Court’s Standing Order Re Final Pre-Trial

17

Conference, the Motions in Limine are submitted without oral argument.

18

I.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE NOT

19

RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FOR FALSE ARREST

20

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

21

Defendants seek an exclusion order to prevent Plaintiffs from attempting to admit evidence

22

that is contrary to this Court’s order addressing the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment

23

(“Summary Judgment Order”). See Summary Judgment Order, ECF 99. Defendants correctly

24

state that the only remaining issue for trial is the amount of Plaintiffs’ damages resulting from

25

their Third Cause of Action for False Arrest and False Imprisonment. See Summary Judgment

26

Order at 29, 31, ECF 99. Only evidence relevant to that claim will be admitted. Absent any

27

specific offer of evidence by Plaintiffs, the court cannot make specific evidentiary rulings at this

28

juncture.

Defendants address two anticipated issues. First, they seek to exclude evidence contrary to

1
2

the Court’s statements in the Summary Judgment Order that Defendants did not physically

3

restrain, threaten, or interview the Plaintiffs; that Plaintiffs were not handcuffed or taken to

4

another location; and that Plaintiffs were allowed to walk around, talk to their friends, make

5

telephone calls, and videotape Defendants. See Summary Judgment Order at 21, 26. Although the

6

Court did not resolve any factual disputes in ruling on the summary judgment motions, Defendants

7

properly identified a matter upon which there was no disputed evidence. Thus, Plaintiffs may not

8

offer evidence contrary to the above referenced circumstances of their detention.
The second issue identified by Defendants is their concern that Plaintiffs will offer

10

evidence that their prolonged detention deprived them of the opportunity to travel to the San Jose

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Arena to videotape the circus animals in violation of their First Amendment rights. Nothing in the

12

Summary Judgment Order would prevent Plaintiffs from describing the lost opportunity to film

13

the circus animals as part of the impact on them of the detention. However, the Court concluded

14

that there was no evidence in the record to support Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendants violated

15

their First Amendment rights. See Summary Judgment Order at 15. Thus, Plaintiff will be

16

precluded from offering evidence or argument regarding violation of their First Amendment

17

rights.
Defendants further request that Plaintiffs’ counsel inform all witnesses of this order. The

18
19

Court agrees and so advises all counsel – for both Plaintiffs and Defendants – that they are

20

responsible for admonishing their witnesses to refrain from testimony that would violate the

21

Court’s orders in this case.

22

II.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO LIMIT PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

23

FOR DAMAGES TO THE PERIOD OF UNLAWFUL DETENTION BY

24

DEFENDANTS

25

DENIED.

26

Based on Defendants’ motion, it appears that Defendants may have misinterpreted the

27

basis for the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action for False Arrest and False

28

Imprisonment. Defendants interpret the Summary Judgement Order as limiting the detention time
2

1

to forty minutes. That is an incorrect reading of the order. In ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for

2

summary judgment, the Court was compelled to resolve all factual disputes in Defendants’ favor

3

and to draw all reasonable inferences on their behalf. See Summary Judgment Order at 26.

4

Having done so, the Court determined that “[e]ven reduced to its minimum, Plaintiffs’ detention

5

lasted forty minutes.” Id. The actual length of the detention was a disputed fact at summary

6

judgment, and continues to be so for trial. Plaintiffs are allowed to offer evidence as to the full

7

length of the unlawful detention, including the time during which the CHP was on the scene. It

8

will be left to the jury to determine whether the CHP took control of the detention, thus relieving

9

Defendants from responsibility.
Defendants are correct, however, that the Court did rule that the initial stop was lawful.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

See Summary Judgment Order at 16-18. Plaintiffs may not offer evidence to the contrary.
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants may offer evidence as to the time the detention commenced

12
13

and the time it terminated, along with evidence regarding the point at which the detention became

14

so prolonged as to become an unlawful arrest giving rise to damages.

15

III.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

16

GATHERED BY PLAINTIFFS IN COLLATERAL DISCOVERY AND NOT

17

PROPERLY PRODUCED DURING THE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY

18

PROCEEDINGS

19

DEFERRED.

20

Defendants seek to exclude evidence not properly produced during discovery. They

21

complain that Plaintiffs violated the Court’s Scheduling Order by deposing witnesses after the

22

discovery cut-off date under the guise of other litigation and that such evidence was not properly

23

disclosed pursuant to Plaintiffs’ obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and (e).

24

Defendants identify depositions of David Bailey and CHP Sergeant Walling as examples of

25

discovery abuses. As to those witnesses, however, it appears that Defendants have obtained

26

copies of the depositions. Defendants’ concern pertains to other evidence unknown to them.

27
28

Litigants have a continuing obligation to disclose the names of witnesses and copies of
documents they may use to support their claims or defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(ii),
3

1

(e). Rule 37 expressly provides that if a party fails to provide information required under Rule 26,

2

“the party is not allowed to use that information or witness . . . at a trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

3

However, the Court cannot rule on Defendants’ motion at this time because Plaintiffs have not

4

proffered any offending evidence. The Court defers ruling on this motion until such time as

5

Defendants advise the Court of such impermissible evidence.

6

IV.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE

7

MURDER OF PLAINTIFF CAMPBELL’S SISTER

8

GRANTED.

9

Defendants seek to exclude evidence of the 1995 murder of Plaintiff Campbell’s sister in
relation to Ms. Campbell’s testimony regarding emotional distress damages sought in this action.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants argue that such evidence is not relevant to any issue before the jury. The Court

12

agrees. Moreover, even if there were some tangential relevance, evidence of such an emotional,

13

deeply sad, and tragic nature would have a far greater prejudicial effect on the jury than any

14

possible probative value. Thus the evidence also is subject to exclusion under Federal Rule of

15

Evidence 403.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: May 20, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4