Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06700/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06700-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY B. MEEKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN PARSONS,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06700-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Trial Date: February 10, 2010, 8:30 a.m. in

Courtroom 3 before the Honorable Judge Wanger

Plaintiff Gary B. Meeks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

medical care claim against Defendant John Parsons (“Defendant”). Motions for limine were

filed by both parties and were heard on January 29, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. – Attorney Nickolas A.

Kacprowski of Kirkland & Ellis LLP appeared in person on behalf of Plaintiff and Deputy

Attorney General John M. Feser, Jr. appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant.

Plaintiff’s motions in limine are ruled on as follows:

1. Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 1 To Preclude Evidence of Orders, Decisions,

Comments or Recommendations by Any and All Courts Concerning the Healthcare

Treatment That Inmates Receive in California Prisons.

Ruling: GRANTED. 

Evidence of orders, decisions, comments or recommendations by any and all courts

concerning the healthcare treatment that inmates receive in California prisons shall be excluded

at trial. Such evidence is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial to Defendant. Federal Rules of

Evidence Rule (FRE) 402, 403.

1

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 192 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 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

2. Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 2 To Exclude Evidence of Any Newspaper

Articles, Other Media Product or Statements Concerning Medical Care Within the

California Prison System, Including but Not Limited to Substandard Medical Care

Experienced by Current or Former Individuals Incarcerated in the California

Prison System. 

Ruling: GRANTED. 

The three documents that Plaintiff seeks to admit through this motion are 1) a document

titled “Medical Services Delivery Plan. Report to the Legislature” and dated July 31, 2002; 2) a

document titled “Stipulation for Injunctive Relief” filed in the case Plata v. Schwarzenegger, C01-1351 TEH (N. D. Cal. February 12, 2002); and 3) a document titled “Locked Out: California

Prisoners Face Poor Health Care, Indifference and Neglect Despite their Legal Right to Medical

Treatment,” which is a newspaper article from the San Diego Union Tribune dated June 29,

2002. These documents may not be admitted into evidence, as they are unduly prejudicial

pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403. The documents may be used or referenced on the crossexamination of Dr. Parsons only if the proper foundation is laid.

3. Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 3 To Exclude Any Evidence of Any Lawsuits,

Complaints, Investigations or Grievances Against Dr. Parsons That Is Unrelated to

Plaintiff’s Alleged Injury and Treatment.

Ruling: GRANTED. 

Evidence of any lawsuits, complaints, investigations or grievances against Dr. Parsons

that are unrelated to Plaintiff’s alleged injury and treatment shall be excluded at trial. Such

evidence is unfairly prejudicial to Defendant. FRE 403. Evidence of other specific instances of

misconduct is not admissible to show Defendant’s motive or to prove Defendant’s character in

order to show action in conformity therewith. FRE 404(b).

4. Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 4 To Exclude Any Evidence of Defendant’s

Insurance or Indemnification by Defendant’s Employer.

Ruling: GRANTED. 

Evidence of any evidence of Defendant’s insurance or indemnification by Defendant’s

employer shall be excluded at trial. Plaintiff did not oppose this motion.

5. Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 5 To Exclude Expert Testimony by Plaintiff

or Plaintiff’s Lay Witnesses Concerning Medical Opinions.

Ruling: GRANTED. 

Expert testimony by Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s lay witneses concerning medical opinions shall

be precluded at trial. Only persons with the appropriate professional experience, training or

2

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 192 Filed 02/08/10 Page 2 of 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

knowledge may give expert opinions concerning medical care. F.R.E. 702.

6. Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 6 To Exclude the Written Reports and

Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Witness.

Ruling: DENIED. 

The written reports and testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness shall not be precluded at

trial.

7. Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 7 To Preclude Plaintiff’s Expert from Testify

Regarding Ultimate Opinions and Opinions Regarding Factual Determinations,

Credibility of Witnesses, Legal Conclusions and from Giving Opinions That Lack

Foundation.

Ruling: GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s expert is precluded at trial from giving an opinion as to any legal conclusions or

an opinion on an ultimate issue of law. Plaintiff’s expert shall not give an opinion that Defendant

was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.

8. Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 8 To Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Medical

Care after His Transfer from Centinela State Prison When Plaintiff Was Not

Receiving Medical Care from Dr. Parsons. 

Ruling: GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Evidence of Plaintiff’s medical care after his transfer from Centinela State Prison to SATF

when Plaintiff was not receiving medical care from Defendant shall be limited at trial to

Plaintiff’s damages claim. Evidence may be presented at trial pertaining to Plaintiff’s claim that

Defendant’s delay of medical care caused damage or injury to Plaintiff which would not have

occurred but for the delay caused by Defendant. Ruling is reserved on whether this evidence

bears on the issue of serious medical condition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 192 Filed 02/08/10 Page 3 of 3