Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05331/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05331-3/pdf.json

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

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

1

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

Michael D. Ott; #064454 

David J. Frankenberger, #186140 

ERICKSEN, ARBUTHNOT, KILDUFF, 

DAY & LINDSTROM, INC. 

2440 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 101 

Fresno, California 93711 

(559) 449-2600 Fax: (559) 449-2603 

Attorney for Plaintiff, MICHAEL L. KEPHART, individually and doing business as KEPHART 

BAILS BONDS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL L. KEPHART, individually and 

doing business as KEPHART BAIL BONDS,, 

 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

vs. 

 

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a local 

governmental entity; CHIEF OF POLICE 

ERIC MATLOCK, an individual; DETECTIVE 

SCOTT E. CARVEL, an individual; 

DETECTIVE GREGG M. BENDER, an 

individual; and, DOES 1 TO 100, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CIV-F-03-5331 OWW TAG 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE 

DATE: September 9, 2005 

TIME: 12:15 p.m. 

Crtrm: 2 

Trial Date: September 20, 2005 

 

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

/// 

/// 

Case 1:03-cv-05331-OWW -TAG Document 105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 4
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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

The Motions in Limine of plaintiff MICHAEL L. KEPHART, individually and doing business 

as KEPHART BAIL BONDS (“PLAINTIFF”) were heard on September 9, 2005, at 12:15 p.m., in 

Courtroom 2 of the above-entitled Court. David J. Frankenberger, Esq. appeared on behalf of 

PLAINTIFF. Jacob Rivas, Esq. appeared on behalf of defendants SCOTT E. CARVEL and 

GREGG M. BENDER (hereinafter collectively referred to as “DEFENDANTS”). Due 

consideration having been given to the above matters and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. PLAINTIFF’s Motion in Limine No. One (1) – to Exclude Reference to 

Settlement Discussions – is granted. 

2. PLAINTIFF’s Motion in Limine No. Two (2) – to Exclude Non-Party Witnesses 

from the Courtroom – is granted. 

3. PLAINTIFF’s Motion in Limine No. Three (3) – to Exclude Reference to the 

Wealth or Poverty of DEFENDANTS – is granted, except as to Phase II of this trial, concerning 

PLAINTIFF’s claim for punitive damages. 

4. PLAINTIFF’s Motion in Limine No. Four (4) – to Exclude Reference to the 

Dismissal of Claims or Defenses – is granted. Further, the Court has ordered that the new caption 

of this case shall read as follows, “Michael L. Kephart, individually and doing business as Kephart 

Bail Bonds v. Scott E. Carvel and Gregg M. Bender.” 

5. PLAINTIFF’s Motion in Limine No. Five (5) – to Exclude Expert Testimony from 

Non-designated Experts – is moot. DEFENDANTS have agreed not to call any expert witnesses 

at trial, including, but not limited to, Don Stuart Cameron. 

/// 

Case 1:03-cv-05331-OWW -TAG Document 105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 4
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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

6. PLAINTIFF’s Motion in Limine No. Six (6) – to Exclude Certain Anticipated 

Testimony of Defendants’ Expert Don Stuart Cameron – is moot. DEFENDANTS have agreed 

not to call any expert witnesses at trial, including, but not limited to, Don Stuart Cameron. 

7. PLAINTIFF’s Motion in Limine No. Seven (7) – to Exclude Certain Anticipated 

Evidence Regarding Plaintiff’s Payment of Traffic and Parking Citations – is granted, without 

prejudice. PLAINTIFF is required to make a foundational showing that DEFENDANTS had 

actual or constructive knowledge of the traffic and/or parking tickets before PLAINTIFF can 

introduce evidence of the traffic or parking tickets. 

8. PLAINTIFF’s Motion in Limine No. Eight (8) – to Exclude DEFENDANTS from 

Testifying as Expert Witnesses – is granted, except that DEFENDANTS will be allowed to testify 

regarding their background, training, education, and experience as police officers. 

9. PLAINTIFF’s Motion in Limine No. Nine (9) – to Exclude DEFENDANTS 

Certain Anticipated Testimony of Third Party Witness Santino Olas Medina – is granted as 

irrelevant as to Mr. Medina, except that DEFENDANTS may be allowed to offer this testimony if 

they can make a foundational showing that Mr. Medina’s statements to DEFENDANTS provided 

the basis for DEFENDANTS’ search warrant dated March 7, 2002. This motion is denied as to 

the Confidential Informant(s) identified in DEFENDANTS’ Probable Cause Statements. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 1:03-cv-05331-OWW -TAG Document 105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 4
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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

10. PLAINTIFF’s Motion in Limine No. Ten (10) – to Exclude DEFENDANTS 

Certain Anticipated Testimony of Third Party Bryan Porter – is granted, in that SCOTT E. 

CARVEL was not entitled to rely on Mr. Porter’s hearsay statements regarding who he believed 

committed to the January 1, 2002 theft and subsequent use of stolen credit cards. Additionally, 

all reports prepared by SCOTT E. CARVEL are inadmissible. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ___Sept. 27___, 2005 

 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

___________________________________ 

 HON. OLIVER W. WANGER 

 JUDGE, UNITED STATES 

 DISTRICT COURT 

Case 1:03-cv-05331-OWW -TAG Document 105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 4 of 4