Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Ortiz v. Alvarez
United States District Court, E.D. California
November 18, 2019
LUIS RAMOS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
GERARDO ALVAREZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RULING ON THE PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE
(DOC. NOS. 218, 219)
At the
August 5, 2019 final pretrial conference held in this action
the parties were advised that the Eastern District of
California has long labored under one of the heaviest
weighted caseloads in the country per judge, that the lack of
judicial resources in this district had reached a crisis
level and that, as a result, the amount of those scarce
resources that could be devoted to the trial of this action
would be limited. The court also advised the parties that the
filing of motions in limine was discouraged. That admonition
was repeated in the court's Final Pretrial Order. (Doc.
No. 217 at 2.) Nonetheless, the parties have ignored this
court's admonition for the most part and filed a total of
sixty-nine motions in limine[1] along with over 250 pages of
briefing and other documents addressing those motions. Given
both the volume and sometimes convoluted and/or arguably
frivolous nature of some of those motions, the court will
merely rule on them in abbreviated fashion below.
Motions
in Limine Filed on Behalf of Plaintiffs Luis Ramos and
Gudelia Sandoval (Doc No. 219):
• Motions in Limine #1, #5, #7, #9, and #12: Granted.
• Motions in Limine #2, #3, #4, #6, and #10: Granted in
part, limiting the testimony of these witnesses to matters
regarding the actions of the plaintiffs remaining in this
action, and excluding testimony from these witnesses
regarding the conduct of Juan Sandoval, a terminated
plaintiff, as irrelevant.
• Motion in Limine #8: Granted in part, limiting the
testimony of witness Martin Mares to the relevant subjects of
the defendant district's LEA Plan and related projects,
and excluding testimony regarding Juan Sandoval's conduct
as irrelevant.
•. Motion in Limine #11: Granted.
. Motion in Limine #13: Granted in part,
limiting the testimony of witness Sonia Jasso to matters with
respect to the actions of the remaining plaintiffs in this
action and excluding testimony regarding the conduct of Juan
Sandoval as irrelevant.
• Motions in Limine #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, and #19:
Denied without prejudice to the renewal of objection when and
if the documents in question are offered into evidence.
• Motion in Limine #20: Denied without prejudice to the
renewal of objection when and if the documents in question
are offered into evidence.
Motions
in Limine Filed on Behalf of Defendants Gerardo Alvarez and
Parlier Unified School District (Doc No. 218):
. Motion in Limine #1: Granted.
. Motion in Limine #2: Granted.
. Motion in Limine #3: Granted, albeit
unnecessary.
. Motion in Limine #4: Granted without
prejudice to plaintiffs presenting additional argument as to
why such evidence should be admitted in this case.
. Motion in Limine #5: Denied.
. Motion in Limine #6: Denied without
prejudice to renewal of the objection when and if such
evidence is offered at trial.
. Motion in Limine #7: Denied.
. Motion in Limine #8: Denied.
. Motion in Limine #9: Denied without
prejudice to renewal of the objection when and if such
evidence is ...