Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00597/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00597-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD P. BERMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF FRESNO and TRACY SINK,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:13-cv-00597-SAB

ORDER RE STIPULATIONS RE TRIAL 

EVIDENCE

(ECF No. 78) 

Per the Court’s Pretrial Order (Doc. 76), the parties have met and conferred in good faith 

regarding their proposed motions in limine. The following evidentiary issues are stipulated to 

by the parties:

1) Evidence related to the personnel records of any non-defendant law enforcement 

officers that may testify at trial is excluded. Such records include, (1) information of a 

personal nature (addresses, phone numbers, income, etc.); and (2) information concerning any 

disciplinary actions or complaints (or lack thereof) levied against any testifying peace officer. 

Evidence related to Deputy Sink’s personnel file, to the extent it includes information of a 

personal nature is also excluded. Evidence related to disciplinary actions or complaints 

brought against Deputy Sink is the subject of the parties’ respective motions in limine.

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 80 Filed 05/09/16 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

2) Evidence concerning the failure to book the subject wrench into evidence after 

Plaintiff’s arrest is excluded. Defendants stipulate that the plastic wrench shown to Jim Sida, 

Defendants’ retained police procedures expert, is a reasonable facsimile of the wrench that is 

the subject of this litigation.

3) Both parties’ retained police procedures experts, Richard Lichten and James

Sida, are precluded from offering medical opinions as to how or whether the force used in 

arresting Plaintiff could have caused injury to his back.

4) The parties’ respective police procedures experts will not render opinions that 

are legal conclusions.

5) Plaintiff is precluded from making any inquiry, comment or argument before the 

jury that suggests that jurors should base Plaintiff’s damages, if any should be awarded, on an 

amount that jurors would charge to endure similar injuries, i.e., the “Golden Rule.” 

6) Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence concerning Defendants’ 

insurance. 

7) The parties are precluded from soliciting testimony or presenting evidence 

regarding the County of Fresno’s indemnification of Deputy Sink for any non-punitive 

damages. 

8) Should a jury find Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages, the phase of the trial 

wherein the amount of damages is determined will be bifurcated from the liability phase of the 

trial.

9) Any evidence or witnesses not timely disclosed during discovery is precluded 

(subject to the Court’s exceptions in the pretrial order).

10) Testimony of experts regarding the credibility of any witness or the parties, or 

expressions of opinion based on factual findings (as opposed to hypotheticals) that necessarily 

require credibility determinations is precluded.

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 80 Filed 05/09/16 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

3

DATED: May 6, 2016 WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP

By: /s/ James J. Arendt 

James J. Arendt

Michelle E. Sassano

Attorneys for Defendants, 

County of Fresno and Tracy Sink

DATE: May 6, 2016 LAW OFFICES OF JACOB M. WEISBERG

By: /s/Jacob M Weisberg

Jacob M. Weisberg, 

Attorney for Plaintiff Richard Berman

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 80 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 3