UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 1, 2009
MARGARET A. SHEPHERD, PLAINTIFF,
OFFICER GARRETT CRAWFORD, OFFICER D. GRIEPP, OFFICER DAVID ANGAROLE, OFFICER T. MUSTARO, OFFICER JOSEPH PIMENTAL, OFFICER SCOPESI, OFFICER YAIR OAXACA, DOE OFFICER ONE, DOE OFFICER TWO, DOE OFFICER THREE, DOE OFFICER FOUR, CITY OF MODESTO, THE COPPER RHINO, LLC, LESLIE R. KNOLL, GRIFFIN ALLEN DYE, AND DOES 5-20, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Oliver W. Wanger
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
This matter came on regularly for hearing before this Court on May 29, 2009 at 12:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3 of the United States District Court, the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger presiding. James F. DeMartini appeared on behalf of Plaintiff MARGARET SHEPHERD. Kimberly E. Colwell appeared on behalf of Defendants SERGEANT GARRETT CRAWFORD and OFFICER DOUGLAS GRIEPP.
HAVING CONSIDERED the papers and arguments submitted by counsel, and good cause appearing, the Court issued its Memorandum Decision Regarding the parties' Motions in Limine as follows:
I. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to exclude evidence of officer training is hereby DENIED.
II. Defendants' Motions in Limine
Defendants Motion in Limine for 48 Hours notice to identify witnesses is hereby GRANTED.
Defendants Motion in Limine to exclude witnesses from the courtroom is hereby GRANTED.
Defendants Motion in Limine regarding admissibility of Media evidence is hereby GRANTED.
Defendants Motion in Limine regarding admissibility of prior or subsequent complaints is hereby GRANTED.
Defendants Motion in Limine to exclude evidence and testimony regarding specifics of arrest and complaints of excessive force by other civilians is GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiff to provide an offer of proof at time of trial as to why such evidence has become relevant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.