Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00023/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00023-15/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

27

28

1

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES BABB, No. 2:00-cv-00023-MCE-DAD-P

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

KENNETH LOW, M.D., KELLY HU,

R.N.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff James

Babb (“Plaintiff”), a California state prisoner, against

Defendants, a prison doctor and prison nurse. Plaintiff alleges

that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Trial in

this matter was originally set on November 2, 2006, but has

subsequently been reset on four additional occasions and is now

scheduled to commence on August 20, 2007. 

///

///

Case 2:00-cv-00023-MCE-DAD Document 354 Filed 07/05/07 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

The Court’s previous orders continuing trial in this matter made

it clear that additional motions in limine, beyond those filed in

conjunction with the original trial date, would not be permitted

absent a showing of good cause.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to File Motion in Limine No. 8, an additional in limine request

that seeks to exclude evidence contained in two letters from

Defendants’ former counsel, Gary Binkerd, to a defense medical

expert, David T. Harrison, M.D. Particularly at issue are

statements contained in the second letter, dated June 2, 2005,

which purport to request that Dr. Harrison endorse the defense

theory concerning the conduct of Defendant Kelly Hu, R.N.

On April 13, 2006, both parties submitted a stipulation and

proposed order to allow Plaintiff to supplement his exhibit list,

to include both letters at issue. Plaintiff failed, however, to

include any information within that stipulation establishing any

“good cause” for the proposed supplementation. 

After reviewing the papers submitted in support of this

Motion, however, the Court does find the requisite good cause for

allowing the additional Motion in Limine. First, Plaintiff was

unaware of the letters in question until March of 2006, when his

counsel deposed Dr. Harrison, and Dr. Harrison produced the

correspondence from attorney Binkerd.

Additionally, Plaintiff could not have become aware of the

need for an additional Motion in Limine until the Court’s Order

of April 24, 2006, which denied the parties’ stipulation to allow

Plaintiff to supplement his exhibit list.

///

Case 2:00-cv-00023-MCE-DAD Document 354 Filed 07/05/07 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

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h).

3

Finally, three days after the Court denied the parties’

stipulation, the then scheduled trial date of May 17, 2006 was

vacated and reset for November 1, 2006. Plaintiff then sought

permission from the Court to file an in limine motion regarding

said letters by filing the present Motion for Leave to File

Motion in Limine No. 8 at the next deadline for such motions,

which was October 11, 2006.

Because the Court believes that “good cause” is demonstrated

by the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion in

Limine No. 8 is hereby GRANTED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:00-cv-00023-MCE-DAD Document 354 Filed 07/05/07 Page 3 of 3