Wyatt B. et al v. Brown et al

Filing 464

OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine 419 , 420 are DENIED and Defendants' Motions in Limine 422 are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed on 5/8/2024 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

WYATT B. et al.

Civ. No. 6:19-cv-00556-AA
Plaintiffs,

OPINION & ORDER

v.
TINA KOTEK et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
This case comes before the Court on Motions in Limine filed by Plaintiffs, ECF
Nos. 419, 420, and by Defendants, ECF No. 422.

As set forth below, Plaintiffs’

Motions in Limine are DENIED and Defendants’ Motions in Limine are GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.
I.

Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine
Plaintiffs’ first Motion in Limine, ECF No. 419, seeks to exclude evidence and

argument concerning “fundamental alteration” with respect to Plaintiffs’ ADA and
Section 504 claims. Plaintiffs assert that this is an unpled affirmative defense and
argue that Defendants should be barred from presenting it. The Court considered
the decision of the district court in Komperda v. Hilton Hawaiian Komperda LLC,
CASE NUMBER: CV 08-00422HG-LEK, 2010 WL 11530664 (D. Haw. April 29, 2010)

Page 1 –OPINION & ORDER

and finds the reasoning persuasive. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s first
Motion in Limine.
Plaintiffs’ second Motion in Limine, ECF No. 420, seeks to prevent Defendants
from accessing the confidential records of Plaintiffs’ witnesses for use in cross
examination. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ second motion in limine. Defendants
shall have access to the confidential records of Plaintiffs’ witnesses.
II.

Defendants Motions in Limine
Defendants have filed eight Motions in Limine, ECF No. 422, which the Court

addresses in turn.
A. Evidence Related to Dismissed Claims
Defendants seek to exclude evidence and testimony related to claims that have
already been dismissed. The Court concludes that presentation of argument and
evidence concerning dismissed claims will not assist the Court in resolving any live
claims or defenses in this case. The Court is cognizant that some testimony may
touch on dismissed claims by way of context or background and such testimony may
be allowed on a case-by-case basis, subject to rulings on any objections, but will not
inform any decision issued by the Court. With that caveat, the Court GRANTS
Defendants’ first Motion in Limine.
B. Evidence Related to an Asserted Failure to Protect Children While
at Home With Their Parents
Defendants move to exclude evidence and argument related to harms suffered
by children at the hands of their own parents on the basis that such harms are not

Page 2 –OPINION & ORDER

cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment. See DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989). Consistent with the limitations established
by the DeShaney decision, the Court concludes that such evidence will not assist the
Court in resolving the claims in this case and so GRANTS Defendants’ second Motion
in Limine.
C. Evidence Related to Issues Not Included in the Complaint
Defendants seek to exclude evidence and argument concerning issues not
alleged in the Complaint in this case. Specifically, this motion is aimed at assertions
of the misuse of child-specific certifications and the assertion that DHS is hiding
evidence of mistreatment and abuse from the dependency attorneys representing
foster care youth in the Oregon state courts, as well as a previously discussed issue
of harms suffered by children in the care of their parents. These issues are beyond
the scope of the claims pleaded in the Complaint and certified for class-wide
resolution and so are not properly before the Court. This motion is GRANTED.
D. Evidence Related to Other Settlements and Lawsuits Against
Oregon DHS
Defendants seek to exclude evidence and argument concerning other lawsuits
and settlements involving Oregon DHS. This motion is GRANTED.
E. Evidence Related to Temporary Lodging
Defendants seek to exclude evidence and argument concerning the use of
temporary lodging on the grounds that it involves a previously dismissed claim in
this case and, additionally, that it infringes on a settlement in an earlier-filed case

Page 3 –OPINION & ORDER

being overseen by another judge in this District. In this case, the use of temporary
lodging may be relevant to the claims of the ADA subclass and evidence connected to
that specific claim will be permitted for that limited purpose, but the Court cautions
the parties that it will not permit this case to intrude on the ongoing administration
of a settlement by another Oregon district court. Evidence and argument concerning
the use of temporary lodging will therefore be strictly limited. Defendants’ fifth
Motion is Limine is therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
F. Evidence Related to Individual Childrens’ Experience in Foster
Care
Defendants sixth Motion in Limine seeks to exclude evidence related to the
experience of individual children in foster care based on the late disclosure of the
identities of the witnesses.

The Court notes that the witnesses have now been

disclosed and the Court has already ruled that Defendants may have access to the
confidential records of those witnesses for purposes of cross examination, over
Plaintiffs’ objection. The Court will therefore DENY Defendants’ sixth Motion in
Limine.
G. Evidence of the Cost of the Defense
Defendants seek to exclude evidence of the cost of the defense in this action.
The Court concludes that such evidence would be of little use in resolving the claims
and defenses in this action and so GRANTS Defendants’ seventh motion in limine
with the additional clarification that evidence of the cost of court-appointed monitors

Page 4 –OPINION & ORDER

and special masters would be useful to the Court, should the Court reach the issue of
remedies in this action and so presentation of that evidence is not part of this ruling.
H. Testimony of Senator Gelser Blouin
Defendants seek to exclude the testimony of Oregon state senator Sara Gelser
Blouin. The Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part.
Senator Gelser Blouin will be permitted to testify as a fact witness but may not offer
expert opinion evidence or testimony, nor may she offer testimony related to
legislative history. The Senators testimony will also be limited by the Court’s rulings
on the other motions in limine. The witness statement for the Senator suggests that
some of her proposed testimony will veer into improper lay witness opinion, legal
conclusions, or hearsay and Plaintiffs are cautioned to avoid such testimony. The
Court will consider any objections to the Senator’s testimony at the time they are
made.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this

8th

day of May 2024.

/s/Ann Aiken
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge

Page 5 –OPINION & ORDER