Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Nancy Nava v. Mike Seadler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


August 2, 2011

NANCY NAVA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MIKE SEADLER,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul S. Grewal United States Magistrate Judge

(Re: Docket Nos. 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133)

ORDER FOLLOWING FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

appeared for a final pretrial conference and oral argument on the motions. The court finds as Pending before the court are the parties‟ motions in limine. On August 2, 2011, the parties follows.

Defendants‟ Motion In Limine No. 1: Defendants move to exclude evidence of prior internal affairs investigations and personnel records. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

Defendants‟ Motion In Limine No. 2: Defendants move to exclude evidence of settlement discussions or events surrounding the early neutral evaluation. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. 26

Defendants‟ Motion In Limine No. 3: Defendants move to exclude evidence relating to events involving Defendant Mike Seadler‟s ("Seadler") spouse as irrelevant. Plaintiff argues that 28

Seadler‟s untruthful

deposition testimony regarding events that involve his spouse are probative of his credibility as a witness.*fn1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as to the use of this evidence to impeach Seadler as a witness regarding the specific instance of his giving 4 untruthful deposition testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) and GRANTED as to all other uses. 5 for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 7 the motion is GRANTED. 8 9

conviction for welfare fraud that occurred more than thirty-one years ago as irrelevant and not

permitted under Rule 608 or Rule 609. Defendants argue that Plaintiff‟s prior police encounters,

Defendants‟ Motion In Limine No. 4: Defendants move to exclude references to the motion

Plaintiff‟s Motion In Limine No. 1: Plaintiff moves to exclude evidence of her former

For the Northern District of California Court

especially her welfare fraud conviction, are relevant to (1) her bias and motive in bringing this

United States District

lawsuit; (2) whether the September 18, 2007 encounter caused her emotional trauma, fear of police 14 retribution, and other damages Plaintiff is claiming; (3) impeach her deposition testimony that she 15 had never been arrested; and (4) impeach her credibility because the conviction involved an act of 16 17 dishonesty or false statement. This evidence is relevant at least to the existence or cause of Nava‟s

claimed emotional distress.*fn2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court adopts the July 22, 2011 Joint Pretrial

Conference Statement as the final pretrial order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court permits Plaintiff to use Plaintiff‟s Supplemental

Voir Dire Questions during his voir dire to the jury, with the exception of the following proposed

questions: "When do you think a police office should be allowed to violate a citizen‟s 4 constitutional rights?" and ""The Constitution only protects the guilty.‟ Do you agree with this? 5

Why or why not?"

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will select the appropriate jury instructions and jury verdict form at trial.

For the Northern District of California

United States District


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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