The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ELVIS VENABLE, Case No. 1:17-cv-01519-BAM (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN
LIMINE
13 v.
(ECF No. 80)
14 PATEL,
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff Elvis Venable (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on
19 Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Patel for nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages
20 resulting from Defendant Patel’s alleged violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. All
21 parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 44.) This action is currently
22 set for jury trial to begin on April 20, 2022.1
23 On January 4, 2022, Defendant filed motions in limine. (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff did not
24 file motions in limine or an opposition to Defendant’s motions in limine. By minute order issued
25 January 21, 2022, defense counsel was directed to provide Plaintiff with a courtesy copy of the
26 motions in limine in advance of the motion in limine hearing. (ECF No. 83.)
27
28 1 The Court issued a separate order continuing the trial date in this matter.
1 Defendant’s motions were heard before the undersigned during a Zoom video conference
2 hearing on January 31, 2022. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff appeared by video on his own behalf, and
3 attorneys Robert M. Perkins, Lucia Q. Li, and Sharon A. Garske appeared by video on behalf of
4 Defendant.
5 As discussed on the record, Plaintiff received a copy of Defendant’s motions in limine,
6 pursuant to the Court’s minute order, on January 27, 2022. Plaintiff stated on the record that he
7 had had an opportunity to read the motions in limine and did not intend to submit an opposition in
8 writing. Plaintiff did not object to the motions in most part, and his limited objections are
9 preserved on the record. Further, argument was heard from all parties on the motions at the
10 hearing. The motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
11 I. Motions in Limine
12 A. Standard
13 A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before
14 it is actually introduced at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). “[A]
15 motion in limine is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and
16 evenhanded management of the trial proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs.,
17 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve evidentiary
18 disputes before trial and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in front of the
19 jury, thereby relieving the trial judge from the formidable task of neutralizing the taint of
20 prejudicial evidence. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004–05 (9th Cir. 2003).
21 Motions in limine that exclude broad categories of evidence are disfavored and such
22 issues are better dealt with during trial as the admissibility of evidence arises. See, e.g., Brown v.
23 Kavanaugh, No. 1:08–CV–01764–LJO, 2013 WL 1124301, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013)
24 (citing Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975); see also In
25 re Homestore.com Inc., No. CV 01–11115 RSWL CWX, 2011 WL 291176, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan.
26 25, 2011) (holding that motions in limine should “rarely seek to exclude broad categories of
27 evidence, as the court is almost always better situated to rule on evidentiary issues in their factual
28 context during trial”); see cf. Oracle Am. Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10–03561 WHA, 2012 WL
1 1189898, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012) (concluding that “a broad categorical exclusion” was
2 unwarranted). Additionally, some evidentiary issues are not accurately and efficiently evaluated
3 by the trial judge in a motion in limine, and it is necessary to defer ruling until during trial when
4 the trial judge can better estimate the impact of the evidence on the jury. Jonasson, 115 F.3d at
5 440.
6 B. Defendant’s Motions in Limine
7 For the reasons discussed at the hearing, the Court rules on each of Defendant’s motions
8 in limine as indicated below:2
9 I.B. Evidence of Plaintiff’s Felony Conviction
10 Defendant’s motion to introduce evidence of Plaintiff’s felony conviction under Federal
11 Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1), limited to references to the fact of Plaintiff’s conviction and that he is
12 serving a sentence related to that conviction, is HELD IN ABEYANCE.
13 As discussed on the record, Plaintiff argues that he has successfully challenged the
14 referenced conviction through the appellate process in case number TA039602 in Los Angeles
15 Superior Court. A ruling on Defendant’s motion in limine is therefore held in abeyance pending
16 supplemental briefing to address the validity of this conviction. Defendant shall submit
17 supplemental briefing on or before February 28, 2022. Plaintiff may file an opposition or other
18 response to Defendant’s supplemental brief on or before March 18, 2022. No reply briefs will be
19 filed.
20 I.C. Plaintiff’s Conviction for False Representation of Identity to a Peace
21 Officer as a Conviction Involving Dishonesty
22 Defendant’s motion to introduce evidence of Plaintiff’s conviction for false representation
23 of identity to a peace officer in violation of Penal Code section 148.9, pursuant to Federal Rule of
24 Evidence 609(a)(2), is GRANTED.
25 ///
26
27 2 The Court follows the paragraph numbering used in Defendant’s motions in limine. (ECF No.
80-3, pp. 3–12.) The motions set forth in the instant order contain all motions in limine submitted
28 by Defendant. There is no motion at I.A.
1 II. Impeachment Evidence of Specific Instances of Untruthfulness
2 Defendant’s motion to confront Plaintiff with his previous instances of untruthfulness to
3 CDCR staff because it is relevant and probative for Plaintiff’s character for untruthfulness,
4 pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), is GRANTED.
5 III. Evidence of Plaintiff’s Bias and Motive to Lie
6 Defendant’s motion to admit evidence that Plaintiff previously sued Defendant for money
7 damages because it shows bias and motive to lie, and its tendency to prove Plaintiff’s ulterior
8 motive outweighs its prejudicial impact, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b), is
9 GRANTED.
10 As discussed on the record, Defendant should include a proposed limiting instruction to
11 the jury regarding this evidence.
12 IV. Prohibition of Plaintiff Introducing Any Evidence About His Excluded
13 Witnesses
14 Defendant’s motion to prohibit Plaintiff from offering any evidence, or from making any
15 statement in the presence of the jury, about any incidents between Defendant and inmates
16 Rochelle Randolph and Martin Bibbs, is GRANTED.
17 V. Exclusion of Evidence that the State May Pay Any Judgment Against
18 Defendant
19 Defendant’s motion to preclude evidence of Defendant’s indemnification by the State or
20 CDCR, is GRANTED.
21 VI. Exclusion of Evidence and Argument Regarding Settlement
22 Defendant’s motion to exclude any evidence or argument of settlement offers and
23 statements made during settlement discussions, is GRANTED.
24 VII. Exclusion of Evidence that Defendant Violated the California Penal
25 Code or Committed a Criminal Act
26 Defendant’s motion to exclude any evidence, argument, or inference that Defendant
27 violated any section of the Penal Code, and to prohibit any mention of criminal conduct or the
28 penal code to avoid confusion of issues and unfair prejudice against Defendant, is GRANTED.
1 VIII. Exclusion of Opinion Testimony from Plaintiff about His Own Medical
2 Records or Medical Conditions
3 Defendant’s motion to exclude testimony from Plaintiff on any medical diagnosis,
4 opinion, prognosis, or the medical causation of any condition, or the quality of medical care
5 provided by Defendant, is GRANTED.
6 As discussed on the record, Plaintiff may testify to that which he has personal knowledge,
7 including how he felt and what he saw or heard.
8 II. Order
9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
10 1. Defendant’s motions in limine, (ECF No. 80), are HELD IN ABEYANCE and
11 GRANTED, as follows:
12 a. Defendant’s motion in limine I.B., (ECF No. 80-3, pp. 3–4), is HELD IN
13 ABEYANCE, as discussed on the record;
14 b. Defendant’s remaining motions in limine, I.C. through VIII, (ECF No. 80-3, pp.
15 4–12), are GRANTED, as discussed on the record;
16 2. Defendant shall submit supplemental briefing regarding motion in limine I.B. on or before
17 February 28, 2022;
18 3. Plaintiff may file an opposition or other response to Defendant’s supplemental brief on or
19 before March 18, 2022; and
20 4. No reply briefs shall be filed.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23 Dated: January 31, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28