The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARK A. FREGIA, No. 1:20-cv-01024-KES-EPG
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS
IN LIMINE
13 v.
Docs. 240, 244
14 LISA GOSSO,
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff Mark A. Fregia is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
18 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is set for a jury trial on
19 July 28, 2026, on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Gosso for deliberate
20 indifference to serious medical needs for allegedly denying plaintiff medication while he was
21 confined at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF) in Corcoran,
22 California. Pending before the Court are four motions in limine filed by defendant Gosso. Doc.
23 240. Plaintiff filed objections to the motions in limine. Doc. 244.
24 I. LEGAL STANDARD
25 “A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence
26 in a particular area.” United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation
27 omitted). Motions in limine “allow parties to resolve evidentiary disputes ahead of trial, without
28 first having to present potentially prejudicial evidence in front of a jury.” Brodit v. Cambra, 350
1 F.3d 985, 1004–05 (9th Cir. 2003); see also City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d
2 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017) (motions in limine “are useful tools to resolve issues which would
3 otherwise clutter up the trial”) (quoting Palmerin v. City of Riverside, 794 F.2d 1409, 1413 (9th
4 Cir. 1986)). Judges have broad discretion when ruling on motions in limine. Jenkins v. Chrysler
5 Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002).
6 A motion in limine is ordinarily granted only if the evidence at issue is inadmissible on all
7 potential grounds. United States v. Holmes, No. 5:18-CR-00258-EJD-1, 2021 WL 2044470, at *3
8 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2021). If not, the evidentiary ruling is better deferred until trial, “so that
9 questions of foundation, relevancy, and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.”
10 United States v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 178 F. Supp. 3d 927, 941 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Such “rulings
11 are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge may always change his mind during the course of
12 a trial.” Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000) (citing Luce v. United States, 469
13 U.S. 38, 41–42, (1984)).
14 II. DISCUSSION
15 A. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1
16 Defendant’s first motion in limine seeks to preclude plaintiff from offering lay opinions or
17 inferences about the nature or extent of his alleged injuries and proper medical treatment,
18 pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702. Plaintiff’s objections do not undermine
19 defendant’s argument. Doc. 244.1
20 “Opinions about medical causation, diagnosis, and prognosis can only be rendered based
21 on specialized knowledge held by an expert qualified by medical education, experience, and
22 training.” Cotton v. Medina, No. 1:22-CV-00568-JLT-EPG (PC), 2026 WL 143140, at *12 (E.D.
23 Cal. Jan. 20, 2026) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701,
24 nonexpert opinion testimony must be “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful
25 to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not
26
1 To the extent plaintiff’s objections restate his prior requests—including for a court-appointed
27 expert witness, and for use of various court filings in this case to “impeach” defense counsel at
trial—those requests have already been addressed as set forth in prior orders. Docs. 217, 238,
28 252.
1 based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.”
2 Rule 702 provides:
3 A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an
4 opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that
it is more likely than not that:
5 (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine
6 a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
7 (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods;
and
8 (d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the
principles and methods to the facts of the case.
9
10 Fed. R. Evid. 702.
11 Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. As a nonexpert witness, plaintiff may testify as to his
12 own observations and sensations relating to his medical condition and symptoms. But plaintiff
13 may not offer opinions concerning his medical diagnosis or prognosis, or regarding the medical
14 causation of his alleged injuries. Nor may plaintiff offer opinions interpreting medical records,
15 treatment guidelines or regulations, or medical studies. Such testimony requires scientific,
16 technical, or other specialized knowledge beyond that of a lay witness and therefore does not
17 satisfy Rule 701’s requirements. Fed. R. Evid. 701(c); see also Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830,
18 833 (9th Cir. 2014) (recognizing medical diagnoses are beyond the competence of lay witnesses);
19 Calloway v. Hayward, No. 108CV01896LJOGSAPC, 2017 WL 363000, at *3, *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan.
20 24, 2017) (precluding lay opinion testimony interpreting medical records).
21 B. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2
22 Defendant’s second motion in limine seeks to exclude evidence or testimony regarding
23 defendant, defense counsel, or other parties’ alleged misconduct unrelated to plaintiff’s
24 underlying claim against defendant Gosso, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and
25 404(b). Defendant’s motion notes that plaintiff has repeatedly accused counsel and other non-
26 parties of engaging in fraud and conspiracy while litigating this case. See, e.g., Doc. 244 at 2.
27 Plaintiff objects to this motion but does not substantively address defendant’s arguments. Id. at
28 4–6.
1 Federal Rule of Evdence 401 provides that evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to
2 make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of
3 consequence in determining the action.” Under Rule 404(b)(1), “[e]vidence of any other crime,
4 wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular
5 occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” However, evidence of another
6 crime, wrong or act may be admissible to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
7 knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
8 Under Rule 404(b)(2), for such other act evidence to be admissible the following criteria
9 must be met: “(1) the evidence tends to prove a material point; (2) the other act is not too remote
10 in time; (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that [the] defendant committed the other
11 act; and (4) (in certain cases) the other act is similar to the offense charged.” United States v.
12 Allen, 159 F.4th 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2025) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Cox,
13 963 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2020)). Evidence admissible under Rule 404(b) remains subject to
14 review under Rule 403. Id. (citing Cox, 963 F.3d at 925). Relevant evidence may be excluded
15 under Rule 403 “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of
16 the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting
17 time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Plaintiff has not identified any basis for the
18 admission of any evidence under Rule 404(b)(2).
19 Defendant’s motion is GRANTED to the extent that defendant may not introduce
20 testimony or argument concerning allegations of unrelated wrongdoing that do not concern
21 plaintiff’s claim that, in January 2018, defendant Gosso was deliberately indifferent to his serious
22 medical needs. Plaintiff has not shown that his various allegations of wrongdoing by counsel or
23 other parties, many years after the 2018 incident that is at issue in this trial, have any probative
24 value, or that they are relevant to plaintiff’s claim that defendant Gosso was deliberately
25 indifferent to his serious medical needs in 2018. Even if there were any probative value to such
26 unrelated allegations, it is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing
27 the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, and wasting time at trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
28 ///
1 C. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3
2 Defendant’s third motion in limine seeks to exclude evidence that the State may pay a
3 judgement rendered against defendant, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 411.
4 Plaintiff objects to this motion, but he does not cite any applicable authority, identify any
5 legitimate purpose for which such evidence would be admissible, or make any argument as to
6 why the protections of Rule 411 should not apply here. See Doc. 244 at 6–15.
7 Defendant’s motion is well supported and is GRANTED. As one court observed:
8 Other courts in this District have granted similar motions. See
Calloway v. Hayward, No. 108CV01896LJOGSAPC, 2017 WL
9 363000, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017) (citing Fed. R. Evid 411 when
granting motion in limine to exclude evidence that the state may pay
10 the judgment in a prisoner civil rights case because “such evidence
is inadmissible, irrelevant, and prejudicial to Defendants”); Saenz v.
11 Reeves, No. 1:09-CV-00057-BAM PC, 2013 WL 2481733, at *4
(E.D. Cal. June 10, 2013) (“Information regarding whether the State
12 or CDCR would pay any verdict or reimburse Defendant for any
compensatory damage award is not relevant to Plaintiff’s First
13 Amendment retaliation claim or his Eighth Amendment conditions
of confinement claim. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Even if such information
14 were relevant, it should be excluded because its probative value is
substantially outweighed by both a danger of unfair prejudice and a
15 danger of confusing the issues. Fed. R. Evid. 403.”).
16 Lane v. Beach, No. 120CV00147JLTGSAPC, 2023 WL 5183685, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11,
17 2023). Here too, for the reasons identified in Lane, evidence that the State may indemnify
18 defendant is excluded. Plaintiff may not present or elicit such testimony or make such an
19 argument at trial.
20 D. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4
21 Defendant’s fourth motion in limine seeks to exclude evidence or testimony of offers to
22 compromise, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 408.
23 Plaintiff objects to this motion and appears to rely on California Senate Bill No. 1421 and
24 section 832.7 of the California Penal Code to assert that no compromise is considered
25 confidential.2 Doc. 244 at 16. But the admissibility of evidence in this federal question action is
26
2 California Senate Bill No. 1421 (“SB 1421”) “revised the state’s law on privilege and
27 confidentiality of peace officer personnel records,” Washington v. Hicks, 2021 WL 5967906 at
*6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021), by amending “California Penal Code Section 832.7 to allow
28 disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) of records” relating to, among other
1 governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, not state law. See Fed. R. Evid. 101; Jones v. Ayon,
2 No. 1:21-CV-00809-JLT-SAB (PC), 2023 WL 7005003, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023)
3 (rejecting application of SB 1421 in federal civil rights action); cf. Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d
4 558, 563 (9th Cir. 2010) (admissibility of evidence in diversity action generally governed by
5 federal law).
6 Federal Rule of Evidence 408 limits the admission of evidence from settlement
7 negotiations. Under Rule 408(a), evidence of a settlement, including offers and negotiations, is
8 not admissible “to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a
9 prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction.” While such evidence may be admitted under
10 Rule 408(b) “for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a
11 contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or
12 prosecution,” plaintiff does not allege or establish any such basis for the admission of such
13 evidence. Plaintiff has not shown any basis for the admission of such evidence under
14 Rule 408(b).
15 Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. At trial, plaintiff may not introduce evidence from the
16 parties’ settlement negotiations or settlement communications or make any argument regarding
17 such settlement negotiations or communications. Based on the present record, the fact that
18 settlement negotiations occurred has no tendency to make any fact of consequence to plaintiff’s
19 deliberate indifference claim more or less probable. Even if there were any relevance to such
20 evidence, its probative value would be substantially outweighed by the risk that the jury would
21 draw improper inferences regarding liability or damages. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. If plaintiff
22 believes that the admission of specific such evidence has become warranted based on
23 developments at trial, plaintiff must firwst make a showing to the Court outside the presence of
24 the jury.
25 ///
26 ///
27
things, serious use of force or serious dishonesty. Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn., v.
28 County of Ventura, 61 Cal. App. 5th 585, 589 (2021).
1 | I. CONCLUSION
2 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
3 1. Defendant’s Motions in Limine Nos. | through 4 (Doc. 240) are GRANTED as set
4 forth above and as stated at the hearing on May 21, 2026.
5
6
7 | ITIS SO ORDERED. _
8 Dated: _ May 22, 2026 4h | |
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28