Lazarus v. Ouansafi et al
TRIAL PROCEDURE ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 (ECF No. 94 ) re 123 - Signed by SENIOR JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 11/14/2023. (eta)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
TANGEE RENEE LAZARUS,
STEPHANIE FO and IOANE AH SAM,
CIV. NO. 21-00247-HG-RT
TRIAL PROCEDURE ORDER
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 (ECF No. 94)
Plaintiff Tangee Renee Lazarus ("Plaintiff") has filed one
motion in limine.
On November 7, 2023, the Court held a Final Pre-Trial
Conference during which the Court rendered an oral ruling on
Motion in Limine No. 1. (ECF No. 94).
The basis of the Court's
ruling issued at the Final Pre-Trial Conference on November 7,
2023 is contained in this order.
Motion in Limine No. 1 (ECF No. 94)
Plaintiff requests that the Court exclude all evidence,
references to evidence, testimony, or argument relating to any
prior conviction and or incarceration of Plaintiff. (ECF No. 94).
Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in
Limine. (ECF No. 97).
Defendants have not provided the Court
with any basis for denying Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine.
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1), evidence of
other crimes, acts, or wrongs is not admissible to prove a
person’s character in order to show action in conformity with
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2),
evidence of other crimes, acts, or wrongs may be admissible for
other purposes, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or
lack of accident. See, e.g., Duran v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d
1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000).
Rule 404(b) applies equally to
civil and criminal cases. See, e.g., Huddleston v. United States,
485 U.S. 681, 685 (1988); Fed. R. Evid. 404, Adv. Comm. Note
("The admissibility standards of Rule 404(b) remain fully
applicable to both civil and criminal cases.").
Defendants have not established that Plaintiff’s prior acts
speak to any of the purposes pursuant to Rule 404(b)(2).
Plaintiff’s prior acts are probative only of Plaintiff’s
Such character evidence is prohibited pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 403
Even if Plaintiff's past acts were shown to be relevant
under Rule 404(b)(2), the evidence may be excluded if the
probative value of that evidence is substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also
Duran, 221 F.3d at 1133, n.3.
Unfair prejudice arises when
proffered evidence creates "an undue tendency to suggest decision
on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an
emotional one." See White v. Ford Motor Co., 500 F.3d 963, 977
(9th Cir. 2007)(quoting Fed. R. Evid. 403, Adv. Comm. Note).
Plaintiff's past acts have limited probative value.
probative value of Plaintiff's past acts is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, jury confusion, and
Admission of Plaintiff's past acts would establish an
improper basis for the jury to decide the case. Id.
past acts would confound and distract the jury from the causes of
action alleged. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
The introduction of
Plaintiff’s past acts would cause undue delay.
See Duran, 221
F.3d at 1133 (excluding evidence under Rule 403 as its admission
would require a "full-blown trial within this trial").
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Lazarus v. Fo and Ah Sam; Civ. No. 21-00247 HG-RT; TRIAL
PROCEDURE ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 (ECF No. 94)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?