(PC) Aubert v. Elijah et al, No. 1:2007cv01629 - Document 114 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Defendants' 97 Motion in Limine #1; ORDER Denying Defendants' 98 Motion in Limine #2; ORDER Granting Defendants' 99 Motion in Limine #3, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/30/13. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESS NN A. AUBERT, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 vs. CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS KEVIN ELIJAH AND MARIO GARCIA, Defendants. 16 17 1:07-cv-01629-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #1 (Doc. 97.) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #2 (Doc. 98.) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #3 (Doc. 99.) 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 This civil rights action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, proceeds on the original 21 Complaint filed by state prisoner Ess nn A. Aubert (APlaintiff@) on November 8, 2007, against 22 defendants Correctional Officers (C/O) Kevin Elijah and Mario Garcia (ADefendants”), for use 23 of excessive force against Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)1 This 24 case is presently set for trial before the undersigned on November 5, 2013. 25 On September 13, 2013, Defendants filed three motions in limine (Motion #1, Motion 26 #2, and Motion #3), which are now before the court. (Docs. 97, 98, 99.) On September 30, 27 1 28 On July 31, 2009, the court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action, based on Plaintiff s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.) 1 1 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants Motion #2. (Doc. 105.) Plaintiff has not 2 filed any opposition to Defendants Motion #1 or Motion #3. (Court Record.) 3 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 4 A. 5 A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence 6 before it is actually introduced at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). 7 A[A] motion in limine is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious 8 and evenhanded management of the trial proceedings.@ Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family 9 Services, 115 F.3d 436,440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve 10 evidentiary disputes before trial and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in 11 front of the jury, thereby relieving the trial judge from the formidable task of neutralizing the 12 taint of prejudicial evidence. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003). Motions in Limine 13 Motions in limine that exclude broad categories of evidence are disfavored, and such 14 issues are better dealt with during trial as the admissibility of evidence arises. Sperberg v. 15 Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). 16 evidentiary issues are not accurately and efficiently evaluated by the trial judge in a motion in 17 limine and it is necessary to defer ruling until during trial when the trial judge can better 18 estimate the impact of the evidence on the jury. Jonasson, 115 F.3d at 440. Additionally, some 19 B. 20 Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “[e]vidence is relevant if (a) it has 21 any tendency to make a fact more or less probable that it would be without the evidence, and 22 (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence 23 is admissible, with some exceptions, but irrelevant evidence is not admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 24 402. 25 outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, 26 misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” 27 Fed. R. Evid. 403. 28 /// Federal Rules of Evidence “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially 2 1 Under Rule 404(a), “[e]vidence of a person s character or character trait is not 2 admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the 3 character or trait.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(a). Rule 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of a crime, 4 wrong or other act is not admissible to prove a person s character in order to show that on a 5 particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). 6 However, “[t]his evidence [of a crime, wrong or other act] may be admissible for another 7 purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, 8 absence of mistake, or lack of accident.@ Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). 9 Under Rule 411, “[e]vidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not 10 admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the 11 court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness s bias or 12 prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.” Fed. R. Evid. 411. 13 “„Hearsay means a statement that (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at 14 the current trial or hearing, and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter 15 asserted in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay is not admissible, with exceptions. 16 Fed. R. Evid. 802. 17 “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the 18 proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the 19 proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). 20 III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE #1 21 In Motion #1, Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from “referencing, alluding to, or 22 otherwise mentioning to the jury through testimony or other means, that the State of California 23 or the California Department of Corrections [and Rehabilitation] would be liable for paying for 24 any judgment for damages that plaintiff may be awarded.” (Doc. 97 at 1:17-21.) Defendants 25 argue that such information is not relevant and would be highly prejudicial. Defendants also 26 argue that such evidence is tantamount to evidence of insurance which is improper. Fed. R. 27 Evid. 411. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Motion #1. 28 /// 3 1 Discussion 2 Evidence that the State of California or the CDCR would be liable for paying for any 3 judgment for damages that Plaintiff may be awarded is not relevant to this action. Therefore, 4 this evidence is not admissible, and Defendants Motion #1 shall be granted. 5 IV. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE #2 6 In Motion #2, Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from “referencing, alluding to, or 7 otherwise mentioning to the jury through testimony or other means, the California Code of 8 Regulations, Title 15 which are listed as exhibits which plaintiff intends to offer as evidence.” 9 (Doc. 98 at 1:16-19.) Defendants argue that the Regulations are inadmissible because they are 10 hearsay, lack authentication, and make an improper legal argument. Defendants also argue that 11 admitting the Regulations as evidence would confuse the jury and would be more prejudicial 12 than probative. 13 In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Regulations are not hearsay, do not lack 14 authentication, are not improper legal argument, would not confuse the jury, and would not be 15 more prejudicial than probative. Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to offer Regulations 16 as evidence, because Defendants rely on a Regulation to prove that defendant Garcia had the 17 right to take Plaintiff s boxer shorts. Plaintiff also argues that the Regulations, which all peace 18 officers must follow, govern the use of force. 19 Discussion 20 Laws are not hearsay, because they are not assertions of anything. Therefore, State 21 Regulations are not inadmissible as hearsay. 22 If a State Regulation is relevant to this action, Plaintiff is not precluded from discussing 23 it or offering it as evidence. Generally, the entire law is not relevant, and only the relevant part 24 will be admitted. A law must be authenticated before being placed in evidence, because it must 25 be established that it was the law at the relevant time. There should be no confusion for the 26 jury if the law is properly authenticated and the only part of the law admitted is the relevant 27 part. 28 /// 4 1 Although there are no pending state claims in this action, the jury is permitted to 2 consider whether or not a party violated a State Regulation, along with other facts, when 3 determining whether a constitutional right has been violated. Therefore, Defendants Motion #2 shall be denied, and Plaintiff is not precluded from 4 5 discussing or offering relevant State Regulations as evidence. 6 V. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE #3 7 In Motion #3, Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from “referencing, alluding to, 8 questioning any witnesses about or otherwise in any way conveying to the jury any question or 9 information about whether either of the defendants has ever been sued before or whether they 10 have ever had a 602 inmate grievance filed against them.” (Doc. 99 at 1:16-20.) Defendants 11 argue that the probative value of such questions is outweighed by the danger that the jury 12 would be prejudiced against the defendants. Defendants also argue that such questions would 13 waste the court s time on issues not relevant to the question at issue, whether excessive force 14 was used by the Defendants on January 18, 2007. In addition, Defendants argue that such an 15 inquiry would violate of Rule 404(a) which provides that “[e]vidence of a person s character or 16 character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in 17 accordance with the character or trait.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(a). 18 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Motion #3. 19 Discussion 20 While evidence of other lawsuits or grievances filed against Defendants may be relevant 21 to the issues in this action, Defendants arguments that allowing such evidence would be more 22 prejudicial to Defendants than probative of the incident at issue, and that the jury may be 23 misled, have merit. Further, under Federal Rules of Evidence 404, Plaintiff is not permitted to 24 admit evidence of a Defendant s character -- or other crimes, wrongs, or acts by either 25 Defendant -- to prove the Defendant acted in accordance with his character. 26 Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants motion. Therefore, Defendants Motion #3 shall be 27 granted. 28 /// 5 Moreover, 1 VI. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Defendants Motion in Limine #1 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is precluded from 4 mentioning to the jury through testimony or other means that the State of 5 California or the CDCR would be liable for paying for any judgment for 6 damages that Plaintiff may be awarded; 7 2. 8 9 Defendants Motion in Limine #2 is DENIED, and Plaintiff is not precluded from discussing or offering relevant State Regulations as evidence; and 3. Defendants Motion in Limine #3 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is precluded from 10 conveying to the jury any question or information about whether either of the 11 Defendants has ever been sued before or ever had a 602 inmate grievance filed 12 against him. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill October 30, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
