MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
This case is set for a trial on December 8, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. before the undersigned. Pending before the Court are eleven motions in limine filed by the City of Madera and Officer Josh Chavez ("the Madera Defendants"). (ECF No. 69.) Defendant United States of America joined in the motions. (ECF No. 70.) No opposition has been filed by Plaintiff. For that reason and for the additional reasons set forth below, the said motions shall be GRANTED to the extent and in the manner set forth below, but DENIED IN PART, on the Court's own analysis, in the limited respects set forth below
Motions in limine may be "made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered."
Defendants move to exclude evidence and witnesses in each of the eleven following categories. The Court rules on each category following its identification:
Defendants first move to exclude the use of evidence and/or witnesses that were not disclosed in discovery or identified in the Court's pretrial order.
This motion is
Defendants move to exclude non-party witnesses from the courtroom during trial-related proceedings.
This motion is
Defendants seek to exclude all reference to law enforcement officer training on the grounds that the training of Defendant's is not in issue and Plaintiff has not designated an expert witness to testify about law enforcement training.
This motion is
Defendants seek, on several grounds, to exclude evidence of other alleged improper law enforcement activities by Defendants and/or complaints regarding same, to try to show a wrongful course of conduct by Defendants or the like.
Among other things, Defendants argue that discovery did not identify any such potential evidence or claims, rendering it prejudicial to Defendants to allow its introduction. The absence of opposition to this motion suggests Plaintiff agrees no such evidence will be offered. The motion may be granted on that ground.
Regardless, the Court finds that any attempt to introduce such evidence would effectively require a trial within a trial of the facts relevant to each of the other alleged incidents to determine their potential relevancy and probative value. The Court finds that would require an undue consumption of time and produce a likelihood of confusion of issues, and so will
Following the incident at issue in this case, the Madera Police Department modified its approach to situations similar to that alleged here. Defendants seek to have evidence of any such modification excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 407.
Rule 407 reads:
This motion is
Plaintiff has identified as possible witnesses individuals who may have expertise in medical and other fields and, if properly designated, might be able to provide opinion evidence. However, reportedly no expert witnesses were designated by Plaintiff in accordance with FRCP 26. Accordingly, no witness called by Plaintiff will be permitted to express expert medical or other opinion or testify on any subject outside of his or her own perception. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A)-(B), 37(c)(1). Defendants' motion is
Defendants move to exclude medical records pertaining to Plaintiff's treatment in connection with the incident which is the subject of this action on the grounds that they cannot be properly authenticated and that even if the contrary were true, they contain hearsay within hearsay and expert opinion.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), documents can be authenticated if the proponent "produce[s] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." Examples of satisfactory evidence include testimony of a witness with knowledge (Rule 901(b)(1)), distinctive characteristics and the like (Rule 901(b)(4)).
Medical professionals, even if not designated as expert witnesses, may identify their own notes and records and use them to refresh recollection on otherwise relevant and competent evidence. Thus, Defendants' hearsay and expert witness objections, though valid and sustained, do not necessarily foreclose the evidence.
The Court will
Defendants also move to exclude testimony from Plaintiff regarding medical findings and diagnoses relating to injuries sustained in the incident which gives rise to this action. Reportedly, Plaintiff has not been designated as a medical expert. Thus, he cannot provide medical opinion evidence, even if he were professionally qualified, and it is assumed he is not. This motion is
Defendants seek the exclusion of evidence and testimony relating to Madera Police Department's policies and procedures. They argue that without the testimony of an expert witness, and none has been designated by Plaintiff, such evidence would confuse the jury or cause it to speculate and prejudice Defendants.
Assuming Plaintiff has not designated an expert on police policies and procedures, the Court is unable to anticipate if and how Plaintiff he might offer evidence on the subject of this motion. It is conceivable that such evidence could be adduced through cross-examination. Accordingly, Defendants' motion will be
Defendants move to exclude evidence of alleged negligence on the part of the Madera Defendants. In light of Plaintiff's admitted failure to comply with the California Government Tort Claims Act, no negligence claim remains against these Defendants. Such testimony therefore would cause unnecessary confusion and potentially mislead the jury.
Plaintiff maintains a negligence claim against the United States. However, there is no right to a trial by jury on Plaintiff's claims against the United States
Finally, Defendants move to exclude evidence from or pertaining to neuropsychologist Paola Cecilia Frias Gomez.
It is unclear, but presumed, that this apparent medical professional treated Plaintiff. If she did, she may be permitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 602 to testify as a percipient witness to her own personal observations if relevant. Reportedly she was not identified as an expert in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and so will not be permitted to testify as an expert witness or provide opinion evidence. Defendant's motion is in that respect
For the reasons and in the manner set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that the parties and their witnesses not attempt to suggest the existence of or introduce excluded evidence, as described above, in any form and not to comment thereon directly or indirectly, or refer to it in any way, before the jury without first obtaining the Court's permission to do so. The parties are further required to warn, caution, and instruct each and every one of their witnesses to comply with this Order and make no reference whatsoever to evidence so excluded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.