Aquino v. County of Monterey Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 213

ORDER RE: TRIAL BIFURCATION AND OUTSTANDING EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/30/2018. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
NICOLAS AQUINO,

8

Case No. 5:14-cv-03387-EJD

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER RE: TRIAL BIFURCATION
AND OUTSTANDING EVIDENTIARY
DISPUTES

v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

COUNTY OF MONTEREY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

12

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 205, 206, 210, 212

13
The Court appreciates the parties’ supplemental briefing regarding trial bifurcation (Dkt.

14
15

Nos. 210, 212). After carefully considering the parties’ arguments, the Court will not bifurcate

16

trial. The parties are cautioned that evidence and testimony should be offered only in a manner

17

consistent with the Court’s motion in limine rulings, and the Court will provide limiting

18

instructions to the jury as needed.
Based on the parties’ submissions regarding evidentiary disputes that remain in this case

19
20

(Dkt. Nos. 205, 206), the Court rules as follows:
1.

21

Plaintiff’s Second and Fourth Motions in Limine Regarding Mr. Cameron:

22

Testimony from Mr. Cameron’s March 20, 2018 deposition at 17:22-18:8, 23:16-25, and 24:15-18

23

beginning with “through” will be excluded for the same reasons discussed in the Court’s order on

24

Plaintiff’s Second and Fourth Motions in Limine.1 The remaining disputed testimony from Mr.

25

Cameron’s March 20, 2018 deposition will be allowed.

26
27
28

1

If it is not possible to strike Mr. Cameron’s testimony mid-line, the entirety of his testimony at
24:12-18 will be excluded.
Case No.: 5:14-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER RE: TRIAL BIFURCATION AND OUTSTANDING EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES
1

2.

1

Plaintiff’s Eighth Motion in Limine Regarding Defense Exhibit 1032 (Dr.

2

Roberts’s Report): Upon further consideration, the Court finds that none of the proposed

3

excerpts from Dr. Roberts’s report qualifies as “facts or data” whose “probative value in helping

4

the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect,” and would thus be

5

admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 703. Thus, the report will be excluded in its entirety.
3.

6

Plaintiff’s Seventh Motion in Limine Regarding Dr. Herrick: The phrase

7

“when there was a missed court date” will be excluded from Mr. Herrick’s deposition testimony at

8

27:18-19, as it is not relevant.2 Fed. R. Evid. 401. The remaining disputed testimony from Mr.

9

Herrick’s deposition testimony will be allowed.
4.

10

Plaintiff’s Ninth Motion in Limine Regarding Defense Exhibit 1008 (Letter of

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Reprimand by Col. Sandlin): In addition to the redactions proposed by Defendants, the Court

12

will additionally exclude the following: “you obstructed” from ¶ 1; “and then resisted . . . home in

13

question” from ¶ 1; “lawfully” from the first sentence of ¶ 2; and “lawfully” from the fourth to last

14

sentence of ¶ 4. The remainder will be permitted. Defendants shall prepare a redacted version of

15

Defense Exhibit 1008 that is consistent with this ruling.
5.

16

Defendants’ First Motion in Limine Regarding Evidence that is Too Remote

17

in Time or Space: The Court will allow Exhibit Nos. 5, 7(f),(n),(p),(q)-(r), and 9. The Court will

18

exclude the remainder of the exhibits challenged in Defendant’s motion.
6.

19

Defendants’ Fifth Motion in Limine Regarding Promotional or Recruiting

20

Videos: The parties shall be prepared to play the disputed video to the Court on July 31, 2018,

21

and the Court will rule on its admissibility thereafter.
7.

22

Defendants’ Objections Regarding Mr. Glazier: The Court will not preclude

23

Mr. Glazier from testifying. To the extent Defendants request the Court reconsider its ruling on

24

Defendants’ Ninth Motion in Limine, the Court declines this invitation.

25
26
27
28

2

If it is not possible to strike Mr. Herrick’s testimony mid-line, the entirety of his testimony at
27:16-20 will be excluded.
Case No.: 5:14-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER RE: TRIAL BIFURCATION AND OUTSTANDING EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES
2

1
2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 30, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:14-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER RE: TRIAL BIFURCATION AND OUTSTANDING EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES
3