Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06490/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06490-13/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

Order re MIL

BETTS & WRIGHT, A Professional Corporation

Attorneys at Law

P.O. Box 28550

Fresno, CA 93729-8550

Telephone: (559) 438-8500

Facsimile: (559) 438-6959

James B. Betts (State Bar #110222)

Joseph D. Rubin (State Bar #149920)

CITY OF FRESNO

Francine M. Kanne, Assistant City Attorney (State Bar #139028)

2600 Fresno Street

Fresno, California 93721-3602

Telephone: (559) 498-1326

Facsimile: (559) 488-1084

Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF FRESNO, MICHAEL GUTHRIE, MARTY WEST,

and ROGER ENMARK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL NEVEU,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, a municipality; JERRY

DYER, individually; MICHAEL GUTHRIE,

individually; GREG GARNER, individually;

DARREL FIFIELD, individually; MARTY

WEST, individually; ROGER ENMARK,

individually; and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No. CIV-F-04-6490 OWW/JLD

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

On November 19, 2007, a motion in limine conference was held in this matter. 

K. Poncho Baker appeared for Plaintiff Michael Neveu. James B. Betts and Joseph D.

Rubin appeared for Defendants City of Fresno, Michael Guthrie, Marty West and Roger

Enmark.

Based upon the Court’s review of the filed motions and argument of counsel, the

Court ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Case 1:04-cv-06490-OWW -GSA Document 221 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - Order re MIL

1. The Court denies without prejudice Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 1)

to exclude character evidence about Plaintiff;

2. The Court grants Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 2) to exclude

evidence of insurance.

3. The Court grants Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 3) to exclude

evidence relating to other lawsuit(s), claims of first amendment retaliation or civil rights

violations and/or employee grievances involving defendants.

4. The Court grants Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 4) regarding trial

publicity.

5. The Court grants in part Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 5) to: (1) limit

alleged first amendment speech to Mata and testimony before the civil service board

and related communications with Capt. Garner; and (2) limit alleged adverse actions to

paid administrative leave and selections to CNT and DCST between November 1, 2002

and December 1, 2002. In addition, the Court specifically excludes evidence of the

asserted recent adverse action which required Plaintiff to retest to carry his firearm.

6. The Court grants Motion in Limine (No. 6) to preclude Plaintiff from

offering any evidence of any claim against Defendant West based on paid

administrative leave and any claim against Defendant Enmark and Defendant Guthrie

based upon selection to special units. In addition, Plaintiff confirmed no Monell claim is

being pursued against the City of Fresno.

7. The Court grants Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 7) to preclude Plaintiff

from testifying as to what he recalls stating during his testimony before the Civil Service

Board, and to limit his testimony to the transcript from that proceeding.

8. The Court grants Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 8) to exclude

evidence relating to problems with the testing procedures that are unrelated to claims of

First Amendment retaliation. The alleged First Amendment speech relates to testimony

that some promotional candidates were unlawfully given the answers prior to taking the

practical phase of the promotional exam.

Case 1:04-cv-06490-OWW -GSA Document 221 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - Order re MIL

9. The Court denies, in part, Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 9) to exclude

Plaintiff from using the term “suspended” or “suspension” to describe his paid

administrative leave. Before testifying that he was “suspended” or was on

“suspension,” Plaintiff must establish the requisite factual foundation for using that term. 

In addition, the Court will give a limiting instruction that the term is being used to

describe Plaintiff’s state of mind, not the legal consequence.

10. The Court grants Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 10) to exclude

Plaintiff from testifying as to how selections to CNT and DCST were made, unless

Plaintiff establishes the requisite foundation that he was involved in the process or has

personal knowledge.

11. The Court grants in part Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 11) to exclude

Plaintiff’s testimony that he was more qualified than the other applicants for special

units. Plaintiff is allowed to describe his qualifications and the qualifications of others, if

he establishes the requisite factual foundation. However, Plaintiff is precluded from

testifying that he was better qualified.

12. The Court reserves its ruling on Motion in Limine (No. 12) to exclude

evidence of post promotional activities/performance of the promoted individuals.

13. The Court grants Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 13) to preclude

Plaintiff’s counsel from making improper comments to the jury regarding damages; in

particular, attempting to put the jurors in the “shoes” of Plaintiff.

14. The Court grants Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 14) to bifurcate the

amount of punitive damages and motion in limine to exclude evidence of Defendants’

financial condition and reference to punitive damages and to prioritize order of proof. 

However, it will not be a complete bifurcation, but a phasing of trial.

15. The Court grants in part Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 15) to exclude

evidence of damages based upon the loss of promotional opportunities and loss of

business reputation caused by this alleged conduct. If Plaintiff desires to 

revisit the ruling, he needs to make an offer of proof in advance of introducing evidence

Case 1:04-cv-06490-OWW -GSA Document 221 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - Order re MIL

of those types of damages.

16. The Court denies without prejudice Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 16)

to exclude evidence of economic damages claimed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is required to

provide Defendants by November 21, 2007, a break down and calculation of his

purported economic damages.

17. The Court denies without prejudice Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 17)

that the question of “whether speech is protected” is one of law. After hearing the

evidence, the Court will make a determination whether the speech is protected under

the First Amendment.

18. The Court denies Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 18) to request the

Court to admonish Plaintiff from introducing testimony that lacks foundation, is hearsay

and is not responsive to the question. Objections and Court instructions regarding

Plaintiff’s testimony will be addressed on an individual basis.

19. The Court finds Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 19) to bifurcate the

Monell claim to be moot as Plaintiff confirmed in response to Motion in Limine No. 6

that he is not pursuing such a claim.

20. The Court finds Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 20) to preclude

witnesses and testimony based upon Plaintiff’s assertion that certain witnesses are

confidential informants to be a nonissue. There are none.

Dated: November 29, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Oliver W. Wanger

U.S.D.C. Eastern District Judge

Case 1:04-cv-06490-OWW -GSA Document 221 Filed 11/29/07 Page 4 of 4