UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
August 2, 2011
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
deposition testimony regarding events that involve his spouse are
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
jury verdict form at trial.
For the Northern District of California
United States District