Asher et al v. Pacific Legends West Condominium Association et al
Filing
106
ORDER Denying 87 Motion in Limine. Granting 88 Motion in Limine. Denying 89 Motion in Limine. Denying 90 Motion in Limine. Granting in part and Denying in part 91 Motion in Limine. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/24/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
SCOTT RAY ASHER et al.,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
vs.
9
10
PACIFIC LEGENDS WEST CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION et al.,
11
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:08-cv-00914-RCJ-RJJ
ORDER
12
13
This case arises out of an alleged arrest without probable cause. Defendants have filed
14
five Motions in Limine (ECF Nos. 87–91). For the reasons given herein, the Court grants
15
Motion No. 88, grants Motion No. 91 in part and denies it in part, and denies the remaining
16
Motions.
17
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
18
Plaintiffs Scott Ray Asher and Kimberly Dawn Asher filed a six-count Complaint in state
19
court on July 1, 2008. (See Compl., July 1, 2008, ECF No. 1, at 5). Plaintiffs alleged that during
20
a press conference held by Defendants Karen Weber and Tammy Ernst concerning a mail room
21
burglary, they identified Scott Asher to the press as the burglar, based only upon their having
22
seen a poor-quality surveillance video of the burglary, and that the responding officers arrested
23
him and searched his apartment without probable cause. (See id. ¶¶ 11–17).
24
Defendants removed. Three groups of Defendants separately moved for summary
25
judgment: (1) Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) and Officers Orth,
1
McGhie and Destito (collectively, “LVMPD Defendants”); (2) Weber and Ernst; and (3) Pacific
2
Legends West Condominium Association (“Pacific Legends”). The Court granted LVMPD
3
Defendant’s motion in all respects. The Court granted Ernst and Weber’s and Pacific Legends’
4
motions, except as to the defamation claim as to statements made to persons other than the
5
police. Before appeal, Plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal with prejudice as against Ernst, Weber,
6
and Pacific Legends. The Court of Appeals affirmed except as to the fifth claim for a Fourth
7
Amendment violation against the individual Officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 which claim
8
it remanded for trial. Those Defendants have now filed five Motions in Limine (ECF Nos.
9
87–91).
10
II.
11
LEGAL STANDARDS
A motion in limine is a procedural device to obtain an early and preliminary ruling on the
12
admissibility of evidence. Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “[a] pretrial request that certain
13
inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial. Typically, a party makes this motion
14
when it believes that mere mention of the evidence during trial would be highly prejudicial and
15
could not be remedied by an instruction to disregard.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1109 (9th ed.
16
2009). Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize a motion in limine,
17
the Supreme Court has held that trial judges are authorized to rule on motions in limine pursuant
18
to their authority to manage trials. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984) (citing
19
Fed. R. Evid. 103(c) (providing that trial should be conducted so as to “prevent inadmissible
20
evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means”)).
21
A motion in limine is a request for the court’s guidance concerning an evidentiary
22
question. See Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562, 570 (7th Cir. 1999). Judges have broad
23
discretion when ruling on motions in limine. See Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d
24
1
25
The nominal sixth claim for attorney’s fees under § 1988 is not a separate cause of
action.
Page 2 of 6
1
663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002). However, a motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual
2
disputes or weigh evidence. See C&E Servs., Inc., v. Ashland, Inc., 539 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323
3
(D.D.C. 2008). To exclude evidence on a motion in limine “the evidence must be inadmissible
4
on all potential grounds.” E.g., Ind. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D.
5
Ohio 2004). “Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred
6
until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in
7
proper context.” Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill.
8
1993). This is because although rulings on motions in limine may save “time, costs, effort and
9
preparation, a court is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and
10
utility of evidence.” Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1219 (D. Kan. 2007).
11
In limine rulings are provisional. Such “rulings are not binding on the trial judge [who]
12
may always change his mind during the course of a trial.” Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753,
13
758 n.3 (2000); accord Luce, 469 U.S. at 41 (noting that in limine rulings are always subject to
14
change, especially if the evidence unfolds in an unanticipated manner). “Denial of a motion in
15
limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted
16
to trial. Denial merely means that without the context of trial, the court is unable to determine
17
whether the evidence in question should be excluded.” Ind. Ins. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d at 846.
18
III.
ANALYSIS
19
A.
20
Defendants ask the Court to exclude as irrelevant any photographs or blow-ups of those
21
photographs that were not available to Defendants at the time they made the arrest. Defendants
22
note that Officers McGhie and Destito made the arrest having viewed the surveillance video but
23
not any photographs taken of Scott Asher in the mail room during the press conference and not
24
any blow-up still frames of the surveillance video. Defendants note that Plaintiffs have provided
25
the latter two kinds of evidence in discovery and appear to be prepared to present that evidence to
Motion in Limine No. 87
Page 3 of 6
1
2
support their position that there was no probable cause to believe Asher was the burglar.
Defendants are correct that probable cause is based upon information available to the
3
arresting officers. However, it is possible that Plaintiffs will be able to show at trial that
4
Defendants had access to the photographs taken in the mail room during the press conference or
5
the surveillance video blow-ups before the arrest. If they can provide a foundation for this, the
6
evidence may be admissible. If not, it will be irrelevant. The Court will not exclude the
7
evidence unconditionally at this time.
8
B.
9
Defendants ask the Court to exclude certain hearsay made by an FBI agent and a USPS
Motion in Limine No. 88
10
investigator while in Plaintiffs’ apartment after Scott Asher’s arrest. Scott Asher claims to have
11
heard the unidentified FBI agent state, “Are you kidding me? I am not charging this guy with
12
anything,” and to have heard the unidentified USPS investigator state, “I think there is a shot
13
you’ve got the wrong guy here.” Defendants dispute that any such statements were made but ask
14
the Court to exclude them as inadmissible hearsay and for failure to identify the declarants. The
15
Court excludes the evidence as irrelevant. The personal opinion of a third person, whether before
16
or after an arrest, has no bearing on whether probable cause in fact existed.
17
Plaintiff responds that this Court previously ruled that the statements of the FBI and
18
postal agents were admissible for the effect they had on the arresting officers. That may have
19
been true when certain state law claims, such as defamation and false imprisonment, were still
20
pending. Now that the only remaining claim is the § 1983 claim for an arrest without probable
21
cause, the statements are clearly irrelevant. Those statements can have had no effect on probable
22
cause, because the arrest was made before the statements were heard.
23
Plaintiff also notes that the Ninth Circuit stated that the officers did not have probable
24
cause to arrest him, arguing that the jury should be directed to enter a verdict for Plaintiff on the
25
probable cause issue. But the only issue on appeal was this Court’s grant of summary judgment
Page 4 of 6
1
to Defendants. Plaintiff never moved for offensive summary judgment. Defendants therefore
2
retain their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on the issue.
3
C.
4
Defendants ask the Court to exclude evidence of unrelated police misconduct.
5
Defendants note that LVMPD is often sued for alleged wrongdoing but that such evidence is
6
irrelevant to a determination of probable cause in the present case. Defendants are, of course,
7
correct but identify no particular piece of evidence to exclude at this time. The present motion is
8
therefore not a proper motion in limine but an unnecessary request for the Court to follow the
9
evidence rules generally. The Court will therefore deny the present motion.
Motion in Limine No. 89
10
D.
11
Defendants ask the Court to “establish the remaining Plainitff(s) and claims.” This is not
Motion in Limine No. 90
12
a proper motion in limine. As noted, supra, the only Plaintiff remaining appears to be Scott
13
Asher, the Officers are the only remaining Defendants, and the § 1983 Fourth Amendment
14
unconstitutional seizure (for lack of probable cause) claim is the only remaining claim. The
15
parties may further argue this at the pretrial conference if necessary.
16
E.
17
Defendants ask the Court to exclude any evidence of Scott Asher’s damages not arising
Motion in Limine No. 91
18
out of the allegedly unconstitutional arrest. That is, they ask the Court to exclude evidence of
19
lost wages or future income, damages incurred by Kimberly Asher, and damages caused by
20
Pacific Legends. The Court grants the motion in part. Damages incurred by Kimberly Asher or
21
caused by Pacific Legends are no longer at issue. However, the Court will not unconditionally
22
exclude evidence of lost wages or future income if Scott Asher can prove those damages were
23
caused by an unconstitutional arrest. Scott Asher alleges lost wages of $58,750 and lost future
24
income of $1,551,000. He will have to prove those damages, but it is for the jury whether those
25
damages exist and whether they flow from an unconstitutional seizure. Defendants argue that
Page 5 of 6
1
Scott Asher missed no shifts at his job and was not terminated due to the arrest. Defendants also
2
argue that Scott Asher lost his professional license (table games dealer) because he lied on his
3
renewal application that he had never been arrested, not simply because he was arrested. But
4
these are facts to be determined at trial. The time for summary judgment motions has passed.
5
CONCLUSION
6
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion in Limine (ECF No. 87) is DENIED.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion in Limine (ECF No. 88) is GRANTED.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion in Limine (ECF No. 89) is DENIED.
9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion in Limine (ECF No. 90) is DENIED.
10
11
12
13
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion in Limine (ECF No. 91) is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day ofof January, 2013.
24th day January, 2013.
14
15
16
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 6 of 6
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?