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.

Robert E. Hunter, D.V.M.; and v. County of Sacramento; Sheriff Scott Jones

February 22, 2013

ROBERT E. HUNTER, D.V.M.; AND HOWARD ELEY,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

On September 4, 2012, Defendants re-filed their Motions in Limine ("MIL") Nos. 1 through 14, which were initially filed in advance of the November 2008 trial. (ECF No. 145.) Those motions were previously ruled upon in an order filed October 24, 2008 (ECF No. 98), and Defendants have not shown why the October 24, 2008 order should be modified.*fn1

Defendants have also filed multiple motions in limine since the action was originally scheduled for trial. These motions are addressed in turn below.

Motion in Limine No. 15*fn2

During the November 2008 trial, Defendants moved to exclude any mention of "a Section 1983 action [that was] recently filed against the County and individual deputies . . . [which] involves conduct alleged to have occurred during a vehicle stop, and does not involve the Main Jail." (Defs.' Supplemental MIL 1:18-23, ECF No. 111.) Defendants argue, "[w]hether the allegations are true, or not, they are sensationalistic, irrelevant[,] and hearsay." (Id. at 1:24-25.)

This motion is unopposed and is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 16

Defendants seek to preclude the testimony of Plaintiffs' prior use of force expert, Tim Twomey, "[w]hether [in] the form [of] prior depositions, declarations[,] or trial testimony . . . ." (Defs.' Supplemental MIL 2:2-4, 2:26-3:2, ECF No. 145-1.) Defendants argue: "[w]hile with his death, Twomey is unavailable under FRE 804(b)(1), where the unavailable witness is an expert, beyond unavailability, the offering party must also show that there is no other expert available who could otherwise offer testimony." (Id. at 2:4-6.)

This motion appears moot since Plaintiffs were given leave to disclose, and have disclosed, a new use of force expert. Therefore, this motion is denied.

Motion in Limine No. 17

Defendants seek to exclude any mention of "[t]he fact [that] the matter was tried previously, the appeal[, or the] result thereof" under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403." (Id. at 3:12-13.)

This motion is unopposed and is granted.

Motions in Limine No. 18-19*fn3

Defendants seek to exclude the expert testimony of Plaintiffs' use of force expert David Orsay arguing, inter alia, that he "is not an expert[, h]is supposedly specialized knowledge is not reliable," and his expected testimony "fails to satisfy any of the standards for expert testimony set forth in Daubert . . . , and is entirely lacking in intellectual rigor." (Defs.' MIL to Exclude Opinions of Pls.' Use-of-Force Expert 2:5-8, ECF No. 167.) Defendants further argue that "Mr. Orsay's opinions ...


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.