Forte v. Hughes et al, No. 1:2013cv01980 - Document 174 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on February 21, 2018. (ECF No. 146)(Munoz, I)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 EUGENE FORTE, Plaintiff, 6 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE (ECF No. 146) v. 7 8 1:13-cv-01980-LJO-MJS TIMOTHY SCHWARTZ, Defendant. 9 10 11 On January 31, 2018, Defendant file motions in limine. ECF No. 146. Plaintiff filed an 12 opposition on February 8, 2018. ECF No. 151. On February 13, 2018, the Court issued a decision and 13 14 order granting Defendant’s motion in limine # 1 and ordering Plaintiff to file an offer of proof as to the evidence identified in Defendant’s motion in limine #2. ECF No. 160. Plaintiff filed his offer of proof on 15 February 20, 2018. ECF No. 165. 16 Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible.1 Fed. R. Evid. 402. “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it 17 has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the 18 19 fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: 20 unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly 21 presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. 22 Defendant’s motion in limine #2 seeks to exclude evidence pertaining to Forte v. Jones, No. 23 24 25 1 It is a tautology to state that only admissible evidence may be admitted at trial, but the point bears emphasis. “Irrelevant evidence is not admissible,” Fed. R. Evid. 402, and the parties are cautioned that evidence or facts which are not relevant to the specific claims at issue in this case are not admissible at trial. 1 1 1:11-cv-00718-AWI-BAM. ECF No. 146 at 1. The Court instructed Plaintiff to include in his offer of 2 proof “the substance, purpose, and relevance of the evidence he intends to introduce at trial.” ECF No. 3 160 at 2. Plaintiff indicates that he will offer testimony and exhibits showing that Defendant was aware 4 Plaintiff had filed the lawsuit Forte v. Jones, and that a reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff’s 5 arrest was motivated by animus rather than the existence of probable cause. ECF No. 165 at 3-4.2 6 Defendant’s awareness of the lawsuit is relevant in this matter because it would tend to make whether 7 probable cause existed more or less likely. Plaintiff’s offer of proof as to that usage of the evidence is 8 satisfactory, and he may introduce evidence that the lawsuit was filed and evidence, if any exists, that 9 Defendant had knowledge of the lawsuit. Details of evidence presented in Forte v. Jones, the conduct of 10 the trial, and the outcome of the lawsuit, however, are not relevant to this matter and will not be 11 admitted at trial. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion in limine #2 is GRANTED subject to 12 the previously explained exception. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ February 21, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 Plaintiff’s filing also includes additional offers of proof arguing that Defendant’s knowledge of Forte v. Jones is relevant to 24 proving that Plaintiff was engages in a constitutionally protected activity, that Defendant’s actions would chill a person of 25 ordinary firmness from engaging in protected activity, and that Plaintiff’s protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in Defendant’s conduct. ECF No. 165 at 4-5. None of these are elements of any claim before the Court in this case, and therefore evidence introduced for the sole purpose of proving those elements is not relevant. 2

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.