Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01798/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01798-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH CASSELLS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1798 FCD EFB P

vs.

D. MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants. Order

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a document styled, “Motion in Limine.”

Plaintiff asserts that during his deposition, defendants inquired into matters not relevant

to this action. He seeks an order prohibiting the use of evidence that is “irrelevant, inadmissible

and prejudicial.” A motion to exclude evidence at trial is premature at this time an any such

motion should be brought within the time prescribed in the final pretrial order, once it issues. 

It also appears that plaintiff is disputing whether these matters are subject to discovery at

all. “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the

claim or defense of any party . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information is relevant if it is

“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” even though the

information itself may not be admissible. Id.

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 79 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff identifies no question at deposition to which he objected upon the ground it was

outside the scope of discovery and the court cannot rule on the relevance of evidence in the

abstract. On the record before the court there are no grounds upon which to conclude that the

matters inquired into during plaintiff’s deposition were not properly subject to discovery. To the

extent plaintiff contends that these topics are irrelevant, plaintiff may move to exclude evidence

in advance of trial or object to evidence when offered in a particular proceeding.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s July 19, 2006, motion in limine is denied.

So ordered. 

Dated: August 29, 2006.

\cass1798.dny m in limine

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 79 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 2