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.

Gilbert v. King

United States District Court, N.D. California

February 26, 2018

AMELIA GILBERT, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW RYAN KING, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DAUBERT MOTIONS RE: DKT. NOS. 95, 100, 102, 104, 115, 117, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125, 158, 161

          JOSEPH C. SPERO, CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On Friday, February 23, 2018, the Court conducted a pretrial conference in this action. The Court's rulings on the parties' motions in limine and Daubert motions are set forth below. The Court stated the reasons for these rulings at the pretrial conference, on the record.[1]

         II. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

         A. Plaintiff's Motions in Limine

         1. Plaintiff's MIL No. 1 (to excluded evidence regarding Plaintiff's sexual behavior or predisposition)

         Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. Defendants may not offer evidence or argument at trial regarding Ms. Gilbert's sexual behavior or predisposition, other than evidence regarding her encounters with Defendants on the night of October 30, 2014 and the morning of October 31, 2014. If Plaintiff introduces evidence or testimony on that subject at trial, Defendants may be permitted to rebut that evidence or testimony but shall seek leave of the Court and make an offer of proof, outside of the presence of the jury, before offering such rebuttal evidence or making any arguments related to that rebuttal evidence.

         2. Plaintiff's MIL No. 2 (to exclude evidence of certain statements Plaintiff made regarding her mother)

         Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. Defendants may not introduce evidence reflecting the specific comments in Ms. Gilbert's medical records that are the subject of the Motion. Nor may they ask Ms. Gilbert at trial if she made these specific comments. The Court's ruling does not otherwise preclude Defendants from introducing evidence of emotional distress experienced by Ms. Gilbert associated with her relationship with her mother.

         3. Plaintiff's MIL No. 3 (to exclude certain colloquial statements by Plaintiff regarding her mental health)

         Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.

         4. Plaintiff's MIL No. 4 (to exclude certain evidence regarding the criminal investigation)

         Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall not introduce evidence or argument regarding a decision or recommendation not to prosecute them. The Court declines Defendants' request to exclude all evidence related to the criminal investigation. Rather, when evidence relating to the criminal investigation is first introduced at trial, the Court will instruct the jury that they are not to speculate about the outcome of the criminal investigation.

         B. Defendants' Motions in Limine

         1. Defendants' MIL No. 1 (to exclude past sexual ...


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.