Barren v. Roger et al

Filing 68

ORDER that 60 Motion to Suppress Hearsay Statements of the Defendant Police Officers is DENIED. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 4/10/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

GREGORY D. BARREN, SR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DAVID ROGER, OFFICER T. ROBINSON; )
OFFICER R. KENT; OFFICER D. SHANE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No.: 2:-11-cv-650-RLH-CWH
ORDER
(Motion to Suppress Hearsay – #60)

17
Before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory D. Barren, Sr.’s Motion to Suppress Hearsay
18
Statements of the Defendant Police Officers (#60, Mar. 20, 2014 ). The Court has also
19
considered Defendants Terry Robinson, Raymon Kent, and Donald Shane’s (collectively
20
“Officers”) Opposition (#65, Apr. 1, 2014 ) and Plaintiff’s Reply (#66, Apr. 7, 2014). For the
21
reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
22
This case is a civil rights action based on an unreasonable search and seizure and a
23
deprivation of due process. Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 3, 2011. The case scheduling
24
order set a discovery cut-off date of May 19, 2014 and a June 18, 2014 dispositive motion
25
deadline. Although framed as a “motion to suppress,” Plaintiff’s motion is a motion in limine to
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

1

exclude evidence at trial. Plaintiff moves to exclude certain statements in the arrest and domestic

2

battery reports. Plaintiff argues the statements are inadmissible hearsay.

3

Plaintiff’s motion is premature and attempts to preempt projected actions of the

4

Officers. However, the Court finds it unnecessary at this time to provide a general court order

5

excluding evidence Plaintiff believes is hearsay when there has been no indication that the Officers

6

intend to admit the reports. Plaintiff’s motion is more appropriately dealt with when the record has

7

been more fully developed and the Officers have actually proffered the reports either in a

8

dispositive motion or on the eve of trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without

9

prejudice. Plaintiff may re-raise these arguments in opposition to any dispositive motion filed by

10

the Officers or as a motion in limine before trial.

11

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Suppress Hearsay Statements

13
14

of the Defendant Police Officers (#60, Mar. 20, 2014 ) is DENIED.
Dated: April 10, 2014.

15
16

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

2