Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01612/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01612-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

____________________________

[Proposed] Order on Motions In Limine

James J. Arendt, Esq. Bar No. 142937

Erica M. Camarena, Esq. Bar No. 227981

THE LAW FIRM OF

WEAKLEY, RATLIFF,

ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: (559) 221-5256

Facsimile: (559) 221-5262

Attorneys for Defendants, SERGEANT GABE TORRES and 

OFFICER ROBERT OLIVEIRA

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ELTON C. FOSTER, individually and on

behalf of a Class of Persons similarly

situated.

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF COALINGA, CHIEF PATRICIA

MEDINA, SGT. GABE TORRES, OFFICER

ROBERT OLIVEIRA, OFFICER TINGLEY,

CPL. CHRIS SIMMONS, and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01612 OWW DLB

ORDER ON PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS IN

LIMINE

Date: June 30, 2008

Time: 3:00 p.m.

Courtroom: Two

Trial Date: July 8, 2008

The pre-trial motions in limine of plaintiff ELTON FOSTER (“plaintiff”) and defendants

GABE TORRES and ROBERT OLIVEIRA (“defendants”) came on for hearing before the

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, in Courtroom Three of the United States District Court, Eastern

District of California, on June 30, 2008, at 3:00 p.m. Plaintiff was represented by attorneys Bruce

Nickerson and Eric Schweitzer. Defendants were represented by attorney James J. Arendt of the

Law Firm of Weakley, Ratliff, Arendt & McGuire, LLP.

After full consideration of the moving papers, as well as arguments made by counsel at the

hearing, it is hereby ordered as follows:

///

Case 1:06-cv-01612-OWW -DLB Document 66 Filed 07/07/08 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

____________________________

[Proposed] Order on Motions In Limine 2

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE

1. Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Regarding Marijuana Use

Plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude evidence concerning use of marijuana by plaintiff

is denied. However, a Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 104 hearing will be held at the time of trial

to determine whether such anticipated evidence is reliable.

DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1. Motion In Limine to Preclude Evidence Not Produced In Discovery

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude evidence not disclosed during discovery or

provided as supplemental discovery in a timely fashion, is granted. Plaintiff’s request to present

evidence that the City of Coalinga paid plaintiff’s medical bills is denied.

2. Motion In Limine To Preclude Evidence of Lawsuits Against Officers

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude evidence concerning any previous or pending

lawsuit(s) against either the defendant or witness officers is granted.

3. Motion In Limine To Preclude Evidence Included In Personnel Records

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude evidence included in the personnel record of either

defendant, or any testifying peace officer is granted. 

4. Motion In Limine to Preclude Experts From Testifying As To Factual Determinations,

Credibility of Witnesses, Legal Conclusions Or Past Experiences of Claims of Success

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude plaintiff’s experts from testifying as to any

opinions regarding factual determinations, the credibility of any witnesses, legal conclusions, their

personal past experiences or claims of success is granted.

5. Motion In Limine to Preclude Plaintiff’s Law Enforcement Expert From Rendering

Opinions in Areas in Which He Lacks Expertise

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude plaintiff’s designated use of force/police

procedures expert, John Sullivan, from testifying as to standards in training and the appropriate use

of the Orcutt Police Nunchaku (“OPN”), law enforcement K-9's and Taser is granted.

6. Motion In Limine To Preclude Improper Comments Regarding Damages

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude plaintiff’s counsel from making any inquiry,

comment or argument before the jury that suggests that jurors should base plaintiff’s damages, if

Case 1:06-cv-01612-OWW -DLB Document 66 Filed 07/07/08 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

____________________________

[Proposed] Order on Motions In Limine 3

any should be awarded, on an amount that jurors would charge to endure similar injuries (“Golden

Rule”) is granted. 

7. Motion In Limine To Preclude Evidence Concerning Comments Made By Judge

Simpson During Criminal Trial

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude evidence related to comments made by Fresno

County Superior Court Judge Alan Simpson during the court trial related to the criminal charges

against plaintiff is granted. This includes, but is not limited to, comments referenced by plaintiff’s

law enforcement expert, John Sullivan, his retained psychiatrist, Dr. Stuart Pickel, and retained

psychologist, Dr. William Hooker.

8. Motion In Limine To Preclude Evidence Concerning Defendants’ Liability Insurance

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude evidence concerning defendants’ insurance is

granted. 

9. Motion In Limine To Preclude Plaintiff’s Law Enforcement Expert From Testifying

As To Standards and Training For California Peace Officers

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude plaintiff’s designated use of force/police

procedures expert, John Sullivan, from testifying as to accepted standards in training and the use

of force by California peace officers is granted.

10. Motion In Limine To Preclude Evidence Regarding the Criminal Case Against

Plaintiff, Including Outcome of The Criminal Trial

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude evidence regarding the criminal case against

plaintiff, including, but not limited to, that plaintiff was acquitted of the charge of California Penal

Code §148(a)(1) [resisting, obstructing, delaying a peace officer]; that the charge against plaintiff

for violating Health and Safety Code §11550(a) [under the influence of a controlled substance] was

dismissed by the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office prior to trial; and that plaintiff’s arrest

for violation of California Penal Code §243 [battery on a peace officer] was neverformally charged

in the criminal complaint is granted.

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01612-OWW -DLB Document 66 Filed 07/07/08 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

____________________________

[Proposed] Order on Motions In Limine 4

11. Motion In Limine To Preclude Evidence Concerning Indemnification of Defendants

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude evidence regarding defendants’ indemnification

for damages by the City of Coalinga is granted. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01612-OWW -DLB Document 66 Filed 07/07/08 Page 4 of 4