UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 6, 2012
PACIFIC CARMEL MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LP, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
After receiving briefing on the parties' motions in limine, the Court on June 4, 2012 held a hearing. For reasons discussed at that hearing, the Court rules as follows.
The Motion to Exclude Certain of Plaintiff's Pretrial Exhibits (Docket no. 121) is GRANTED IN PART. No later than June 22, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel will identify to Defendants' counsel the exhibits identified in the motion, and provide them with clear copies of such exhibits.
The Motion to Exclude or Prevent Defense Counsel from Making Disparaging Remarks Against McIver (Docket no. 122) is DENIED as moot. The Court expects all counsel to behave themselves civilly and professionally at all times.
The court RESERVES ruling on the Motion to Exclude or Prevent Defendants from Offering Irrelevant/Prejudicial Evidence (Docket no. 123). No later than June 22, 2012, the parties may file supplemental briefing, not to exceed five pages.
The Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Defendants' Good Faith Efforts to Remove Barriers (Docket no. 124) is DENIED. The evidence is relevant to the extent it is offered to establish a "temporary interruption" defense.
The Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Amount of Statutory Damages (Docket no. 125) is DENIED. Either party's witnesses may be impeached with evidence of bias, including their financial interest in this action.
The Motion to Preclude Certain Testimony by Plaintiff (Docket no. 126) is DENIED. If the proper foundation is laid to show Plaintiff's memory has been refreshed. But Defendants are not precluded from offering impeaching evidence concerning his previous inability to remember.
The Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Inference Not Supported by the Record and Prevent Defendant[s] from Using Physical Objects Not Received in Evidence (Docket # 127) is too vague and speculative and, as such, is DENIED.
The Court RESERVES ruling on the Motion to Exclude Barriers (Docket # 128, 129). The Court RESERVES ruling on the Motion to Exclude Evidence or Testimony re Toilet Tissue Dispenser (Docket no. 130). Each side may file a brief not exceeding two pages on the issue of Defendants' right to elect either the 1991 or the 2010 ADAAG.
The joint motion for leave to file an answer to the first amended complaint (Docket no. 115) is GRANTED. The answer (Docket no. 117) is accepted as filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.