McIver v. Pacific Carmel Mountain Holdings, LP et al

Filing 145

ORDER on Motions in Limine. The Motion to Exclude Certain of Plaintiff's Pretrial Exhibits 121 is GRANTED IN PART. The Motion to Exclude or Prevent Defense Counsel from Making Disparaging Remarks Against McIver 122 is DENIED as moot. The cou rt RESERVES ruling on the Motion to Exclude or Prevent Defendants from Offering Irrelevant/Prejudicial Evidence 123 . No later than June 22, 2012, the parties may file supplemental briefing, not to exceed five pages. The Motion to Exclude Evidence R egarding Defendants' Good Faith Efforts to Remove Barriers 124 is DENIED. The Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Amount of Statutory Damages 125 is DENIED. The Motion to Preclude Certain Testimony by Plaintiff 126 is DENIED. The Motion t o Exclude Evidence Regarding Inference Not Supported by the Record and Prevent Defendant[s] from Using Physical Objects Not Received in Evidence 127 is too vague and speculative and, as such, is DENIED. The Court RESERVES ruling on the Motion to Ex clude Barriers 128 , 129 . The Court RESERVES ruling on the Motion to Exclude Evidence or Testimony re Toilet Tissue Dispenser 130 . Each side may file a brief not exceeding two pages on the issue of Defendants' right to elect either the 1991 or the 2010 ADAAG. The joint motion for leave to file an answer to the first amended complaint 115 is GRANTED. The answer 117 is accepted as filed. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/6/12. (kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY McIVER,

CASE NO. 09CV1975-LAB (AJB)
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

vs.
13
14

PACIFIC CARMEL MOUNTAIN
HOLDINGS, LP,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

After receiving briefing on the parties’ motions in limine, the Court on June 4, 2012
held a hearing. For reasons discussed at that hearing, the Court rules as follows.

19

The Motion to Exclude Certain of Plaintiff's Pretrial Exhibits (Docket no. 121) is

20

GRANTED IN PART. No later than June 22, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel will identify to

21

Defendants’ counsel the exhibits identified in the motion, and provide them with clear copies

22

of such exhibits.

23

The Motion to Exclude or Prevent Defense Counsel from Making Disparaging

24

Remarks Against McIver (Docket no. 122) is DENIED as moot. The Court expects all counsel

25

to behave themselves civilly and professionally at all times.

26

The court RESERVES ruling on the Motion to Exclude or Prevent Defendants from

27

Offering Irrelevant/Prejudicial Evidence (Docket no. 123). No later than June 22, 2012, the

28

parties may file supplemental briefing, not to exceed five pages.

-1-

09CV1975

1

The Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Defendants' Good Faith Efforts to

2

Remove Barriers (Docket no. 124) is DENIED. The evidence is relevant to the extent it is

3

offered to establish a “temporary interruption” defense.

4

The Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Amount of Statutory Damages (Docket

5

no. 125) is DENIED. Either party’s witnesses may be impeached with evidence of bias,

6

including their financial interest in this action.

7

The Motion to Preclude Certain Testimony by Plaintiff (Docket no. 126) is DENIED.

8

If the proper foundation is laid to show Plaintiff’s memory has been refreshed. But

9

Defendants are not precluded from offering impeaching evidence concerning his previous

10

inability to remember.

11

The Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Inference Not Supported by the Record

12

and Prevent Defendant[s] from Using Physical Objects Not Received in Evidence (Docket

13

# 127) is too vague and speculative and, as such, is DENIED.

14

The Court RESERVES ruling on the Motion to Exclude Barriers (Docket # 128, 129).

15

The Court RESERVES ruling on the Motion to Exclude Evidence or Testimony re

16

Toilet Tissue Dispenser (Docket no. 130). Each side may file a brief not exceeding two pages

17

on the issue of Defendants’ right to elect either the 1991 or the 2010 ADAAG.

18
19

The joint motion for leave to file an answer to the first amended complaint (Docket no.
115) is GRANTED. The answer (Docket no. 117) is accepted as filed.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 6, 2012

23
24

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

-2-

09CV1975