Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06111/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06111-0/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

MARDEROSIAN, 

RUNYON, CERCONE,, 

LEHMAN & ARMO

1260 Fulton Mall

Fresno, CA 93721

Jackson v . City of Baker sfield, e t al.

United States District Court No. CIV-F-03-6111 OWW TAG

1

Michael G. Marderosian, No. 77296

Ovidio Oviedo, Jr., No. 210311

MARDEROSIAN, RUNYON, CERCONE,

 LEHMAN & ARMO

1260 Fulton Mall

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 441-7991

Facsimile: (559) 441-8170

Attorneys for: Defendants CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, POLICE CHIEF ERIC MATLOCK

and OFFICERS RICHARD DAVIS and PETER FOX

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE JACKSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, an entity; Police

Chief ERIC MATLOCK, individually and

officially; RICHARD DAVIS #807;

individually and officially; and PETER FOX

#733 individually and officially and DOES 1-

10 INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case Number CIV-F-03-6111 OWW TAG

 ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS 

IN LIMINE

Trial Date: May 24, 2005

On May 13, 2005, the court issued the following orders regarding defendants’ requested

Motions in Limine:

1. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 1: Denied.

Plaintiff can introduce evidence of the criminal acquittal and

defendants can introduce evidence of the criminal plea. Plaintiff can

also introduce evidence as to whether or not the district attorney had

any knowledge that the defendants presented false and inaccurate

information leading to plaintiff’s criminal prosecution. 

2. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 2: Granted without prejudice to renew.

3. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 3: Granted without prejudice to renew.

4. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 4: Denied.

Case 1:03-cv-06111-OWW -TAG Document 106 Filed 06/08/05 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

27

28

MARDEROSIAN, 

RUNYON, CERCONE,, 

LEHMAN & ARMO

1260 Fulton Mall

Fresno, CA 93721

Jackson v . City of Baker sfield, e t al.

United States District Court No. CIV-F-03-6111 OWW TAG

2

5. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 5: Granted per stipulation.

6. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 6: Granted.

Plaintiff will be permitted to introduce the amount of medical

expenses only.

7. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 7: 

This motion will be decided at the time of trial regarding each

photograph offered into evidence by plaintiff. Plaintiff is instructed to

show each photograph to defense counsel before showing the

photograph to the jury or describing what is depicted in the photograph

in open court. If defense counsel raises an objection, the court will

resolve the issue outside the presence of the jury.

8. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 8: 

Granted without prejudice to renew in the Monell phase of the

case.

9. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 9: 

Granted, however can be used for impeachment if a proper

foundation is presented.

10. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 10: 

Granted. However, can be renewed in the Monell phase of the

case upon presentation of proper foundation.

11. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 11: Granted.

12. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 12: Granted per stipulation.

13. Defendants’ requested Motion in Limine No. 13: Granted per stipulation.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

Dated: May __25__, 2005. ___________________________________________

THE HONORABLE OLIVER W. WANGER,

JUDGEOFTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT

Case 1:03-cv-06111-OWW -TAG Document 106 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 2