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.

Nichols v. City of San Jose

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

May 5, 2017

FELICIA NICHOLS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE [RE: ECF 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 69]

          BETH LAB SON FREEMAN United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Felicia Nichols brings this action following an encounter with San Jose Police Officers on November 8, 2012. Nichols initially brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of San Jose (the “City”) and the individual police officers involved in the incident: Christopher Schipke and Officer Ferguson. Only the claims against Officer Schipke for false arrest, use of excessive force, and unlawful search remain. The Court held a pretrial conference on May 4, 2017, at which time it addressed a number of trial issues and heard argument on the parties' motions in limine. The Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

         I. SCHEDULING

         Each party is allotted 15 hours of trial time, to include examination and cross-examination of witnesses and the presentation of evidence. Each party will have an additional 30 minutes for opening statements and one hour for closing arguments. Additionally, each party will be allotted 40 minutes for oral voir dire. The parties are ORDERED to file a revised proposed verdict form and jury questionnaire on or before May 30, 2017.

         II. JURY QUESTIONNAIRE

         For the reasons discussed on the record, the Court ORDERS the parties to omit the following questions from the proposed jury questionnaire: 7 and 25. The Court also ORDERS the parties to make any additional modifications as discussed on the record.

         III. REQUEST FOR BIFURCATION

         In the joint pretrial statement, Plaintiff asks the Court to bifurcate punitive damages and liability issues. J. Pretrial S. 6, ECF 56. Defendant does not object to this request. Nevertheless, the Court does not find that bifurcation is necessary, and further finds that bifurcation would be time consuming. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to bifurcate punitive damages and liability issues.

         IV. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

         For the reasons explained below and on the record at the May 4, 2017, pretrial conference, the motions are decided as follows:

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1: WITHDRAWN.
Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 1: GRANTED.
Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 2: DENIED.
Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 3: DENIED IN ...

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.