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.

Young v. Wolfe

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 14, 2017

JOHN YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
ARON WOLFE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER Re: DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311]

          HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior U.S. District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Currently before the Court are Defendants Aron Wolfe, Christina Martinez, and Robert Ochoa, (collectively, “Defendants”) Motions in Limine (“MIL”) Nos. 1 through 7 [305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311]. Having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to these Motions, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Court GRANTS IN PART, DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion in Limine #1 [305].
2. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion in Limine #2 [306].
3. The Court GRANTS IN PART, DENIES IN PART
Defendants' Motion in Limine #3 [307].
4. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion in Limine #4 [308].
5. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion in Limine #5 [309].
6. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion in Limine #6 [310].
7. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion in Limine #7 [311].

         A. Defendants' Motion in Limine #1

         Defendants' MIL #1 seeks to preclude Plaintiff John Young (“Plaintiff”) from calling witnesses and presenting evidence not previously disclosed in Plaintiff's disclosures or discovery responses. These include: 1) photographs of Plaintiff (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3); 2) Notice of Claim (Plaintiff's Exhibit 4); 3) Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (“LASD”) Inmate Assault Load Sheet (Plaintiff's Exhibit 34); 4) Report of the Citizen's Commission on Jail Violence (Plaintiff's Exhibit 37); and 5) Statement of Attorney's Fees (Plaintiff's Exhibit 44).

         Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 37, the party facing exclusion of evidence has the burden of showing that a failure to comply with FRCP 26 was “substantially justified or harmless.” R&R Sails v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania, 673 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 2012)(citing Torres v. City of L.A., 548 F.3d 1197, 1213 (9th Cir. 2008)); see also Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001). When parties seek to exclude evidence based on FRCP 26 and 37, courts employ the five factor analysis set forth in Southern States Rock and Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 597 (4th Cir. 2003). The factors are: (1) the surprise to the party against whom the evidence would be offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the ...


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.