Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BARREN v. ROGER, 2:-11-cv-650-RLH-CWH. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20140411a33 Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory D. Barren, Sr.'s Motion to Suppress Hearsay Statements of the Defendant Police Officers (#60, Mar. 20, 2014). The Court has also considered Defendants Terry Robinson, Raymon Kent, and Donald Shane's (collectively "Officers") Opposition (#65, Apr. 1, 2014) and Plaintiff's Reply (#66, Apr. 7, 2014). For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion. This case is a civil rights action based on an unre
More

ORDER

ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory D. Barren, Sr.'s Motion to Suppress Hearsay Statements of the Defendant Police Officers (#60, Mar. 20, 2014). The Court has also considered Defendants Terry Robinson, Raymon Kent, and Donald Shane's (collectively "Officers") Opposition (#65, Apr. 1, 2014) and Plaintiff's Reply (#66, Apr. 7, 2014). For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion.

This case is a civil rights action based on an unreasonable search and seizure and a deprivation of due process. Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 3, 2011. The case scheduling order set a discovery cut-off date of May 19, 2014 and a June 18, 2014 dispositive motion deadline. Although framed as a "motion to suppress," Plaintiff's motion is a motion in limine to exclude evidence at trial. Plaintiff moves to exclude certain statements in the arrest and domestic battery reports. Plaintiff argues the statements are inadmissible hearsay.

Plaintiff's motion is premature and attempts to preempt projected actions of the Officers. However, the Court finds it unnecessary at this time to provide a general court order excluding evidence Plaintiff believes is hearsay when there has been no indication that the Officers intend to admit the reports. Plaintiff's motion is more appropriately dealt with when the record has been more fully developed and the Officers have actually proffered the reports either in a dispositive motion or on the eve of trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-raise these arguments in opposition to any dispositive motion filed by the Officers or as a motion in limine before trial.

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Suppress Hearsay Statements of the Defendant Police Officers (#60, Mar. 20, 2014) is DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer