Hernandez v. City of Albuquerque et al

Filing 248

ORDER by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales granting in part 212 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Contained in City of Albuquerque Records. (tah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ALFONSO HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. CV 14-964 KG/SCY

ANDY FITZGERALD,
Defendant.
PARTIAL ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE (Doc. 212)
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Andy Fitzgerald’s Motion in Limine to
Exclude Evidence Contained in City of Albuquerque Records, filed February 11, 2019. (Doc.
212). Plaintiff Alfonso Hernandez filed his response in opposition on February 15, 2019. (Doc.
227). In his response, Plaintiff argues that admissions made by prior defendant City of
Albuquerque (CABQ) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 contradict Defendant’s
interrogatory answers. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to introduce CABQ’s admissions against
Defendant, the Court holds that such admissions are not admissible against Defendant and are
hereby excluded from trial. See, e.g., Riberglass v. Techni-Glass Indus., Inc., 811 F.2d 565, 566
(11th Cir. 1987) (finding deemed admissions of defendant cannot be binding on codefendant)
(citing United States v. Wheeler, 161 F. Supp. 193 (W.D. Ark. 1958); Community State Bank of
Hayti v. Midwest Steel Erection, Inc., 1977 WL 1153 (D.S.D. 1977); In re Leonetti, 28 B.R. 1003
(E.D. Pa. 1983)). See also 8A Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2264
(“It is only when the admission is offered against the party who made it that it comes within the
exception to the hearsay rule for admissions of a party opponent.”).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence
Contained in City of Albuquerque Records, filed February 11, 2019 (Doc. 212), is granted in part
and to the extent that any admissions made by the City of Albuquerque are excluded from trial.

_____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2