Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Meeks v. Parsons

February 5, 2010

GARY B. MEEKS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN PARSONS, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Trial Date: February 10, 2010, 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3 before the Honorable Judge Wanger.

Plaintiff Gary B. Meeks ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical care claim against Defendant John Parsons ("Defendant"). Motions for limine were filed by both parties and were heard on January 29, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. -- Attorney Nickolas A. Kacprowski of Kirkland & Ellis LLP appeared in person on behalf of Plaintiff and Deputy Attorney General John M. Feser, Jr. appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant.

Plaintiff's motions in limine are ruled on as follows:

1. Defendant's Motion In Limine No. 1 To Preclude Evidence of Orders, Decisions, Comments or Recommendations by Any and All Courts Concerning the Healthcare Treatment That Inmates Receive in California Prisons.

Ruling: GRANTED.

Evidence of orders, decisions, comments or recommendations by any and all courts concerning the healthcare treatment that inmates receive in California prisons shall be excluded at trial. Such evidence is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial to Defendant. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule (FRE) 402, 403.

2. Defendant's Motion In Limine No. 2 To Exclude Evidence of Any Newspaper Articles, Other Media Product or Statements Concerning Medical Care Within the California Prison System, Including but Not Limited to Substandard Medical Care Experienced by Current or Former Individuals Incarcerated in the California Prison System.

Ruling: GRANTED.

The three documents that Plaintiff seeks to admit through this motion are 1) a document titled "Medical Services Delivery Plan. Report to the Legislature" and dated July 31, 2002; 2) a document titled "Stipulation for Injunctive Relief" filed in the case Plata v. Schwarzenegger, C-01-1351 TEH (N. D. Cal. February 12, 2002); and 3) a document titled "Locked Out: California Prisoners Face Poor Health Care, Indifference and Neglect Despite their Legal Right to Medical Treatment," which is a newspaper article from the San Diego Union Tribune dated June 29, 2002. These documents may not be admitted into evidence, as they are unduly prejudicial pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403. The documents may be used or referenced on the cross-examination of Dr. Parsons only if the proper foundation is laid.

3. Defendant's Motion In Limine No. 3 To Exclude Any Evidence of Any Lawsuits, Complaints, Investigations or Grievances Against Dr. Parsons That Is Unrelated to Plaintiff's Alleged Injury and Treatment.

Ruling: GRANTED.

Evidence of any lawsuits, complaints, investigations or grievances against Dr. Parsons that are unrelated to Plaintiff's alleged injury and treatment shall be excluded at trial. Such evidence is unfairly prejudicial to Defendant. FRE 403. Evidence of other specific instances of misconduct is not admissible to show Defendant's motive or to prove Defendant's character in order to show action in conformity therewith. FRE 404(b).

4. Defendant's Motion In Limine No. 4 To Exclude Any Evidence of Defendant's Insurance or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.