Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02952/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02952-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LUIS HERNANDEZ and CINDY 

CALDERON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITY OF SAN JOSE; THE SAN JOSE 

POLICE DEPARTMENT (“SJPD”); ERNIE 

ALCANTAR, individually and in his official 

capacity as Captain, SJPD; and JAMES 

WERKEMA, individually and in his official 

capacity as Lieutenant, SJPD,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-02952-HRL 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS 

IN LIMINE

Re: Dkt. No. 62

For the reasons discussed at the June 21, 2016 Final Pretrial Conference, the court rules on 

defendants’ motions in limine as follows:

Motion in Limine No. 1 to “Preclude any Evidence of Defendants Ernie Alcantar and 

James Werkema’s Financial Condition” is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED.

Motion in Limine No. 2 to “Preclude Plaintiffs from Presenting Evidence Regarding any 

Time-Barred Claims as the Basis for any Liability” is GRANTED; however, plaintiffs may use

pre-limitation period events as background evidence in support of their timely claims. Nat’l R.R. 

Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 2072 (2002); RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 

307 F.3d 1045, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case 5:12-cv-02952-HRL Document 70 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion in Limine No. 3 to “Preclude Plaintiffs from Presenting any Evidence or Argument 

Regarding a Claim that Cindy Calderon was Retaliated Against for Exercising her Right to Free 

Speech” is GRANTED. Calderon essentially makes a de facto request to amend the complaint to 

add a new basis for relief---i.e., exactly the same as the one alleged for Hernandez, her co-plaintiff 

and friend. It is inconceivable that Calderon’s free speech claim would be overlooked by the 

attorney drafting the complaint. The only plausible conclusion is that she did not have such a 

claim. Moreover, this court is told that in deposition,1 Calderon testified that her only grievance 

was based on the alleged violation of her right to free association:

Q: So the only reason that you believe that you were being retaliated 

against in 2008 is because you were friends with Officer Hernandez?

A: Yes. And also the structure of their whole testing. There would be 

no way for me to check what my answers were against what they claim the 

answers were.

To allow amendment now would open the door for Calderon to testify at trial contrary to what she 

testified to in deposition. That will not be countenanced by the court.

Motion in Limine No. 4 to “Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff’s Proposed Expert Jennifer 

Ziegler” is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Ziegler may not offer legal 

conclusions, speculative or argumentative opinions, or make fact determinations that properly 

belong to the jury. She may not opine on damages based on time-barred events. However, Ziegler 

may be permitted to opine in response to appropriate hypothetical questions based on facts 

supported by the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403, 702, 703.

Motion in Limine No. 5 to “Exclude any Evidence or Witnesses Not Produced or Revealed 

in Response to Discovery Requests” is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. It goes without saying that 

 

1

The quoted portions of Calderon’s deposition testimony were read to the court on the record at 

the pretrial conference.

Case 5:12-cv-02952-HRL Document 70 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

neither side will be permitted to present such evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:12-cv-02952-HRL Document 70 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:12-cv-02952-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Ardell Johnson CAO.Main@sanjoseca.gov, leslie.donahue@sanjoseca.gov

Kathryn Jennifer Zoglin Katie.Zoglin@sanjoseca.gov

Nkia Desiree Richardson cao.main@sanjoseca.gov

Paul D Ahn paul.ahn@vta.org, margarita.martinez@vta.org

Thomas Kevin Bourke TallTom2@aol.com, legalassistant@bourkelaw.com, 

mazizi@bourkelaw.com

Case 5:12-cv-02952-HRL Document 70 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 4