Ortiz v. Alvarez

          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 ...