Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00577/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00577-7/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

Order on Defendants’ Motions in Limine.

1

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

Attorney General of the State of California

TYLER B. PON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

JEFFREY R. VINCENT, State Bar No. 161013

Deputy Attorney General

1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor

P.O. Box 70550

Oakland, CA 94612-0550

Telephone: (510) 622-2127

Fax: (510) 622-2270

Email: Jeffrey.Vincent@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants David Salcido and Greg Makel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK MCAFEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA

HIGHWAY PATROL, CHP OFFICER

GREG MAKEL, CHP OFFICER

SALCIDO, CHP CAPT. G.L. FIEF,

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

MOTOR VEHICLES, HEARING

OFFICER G. VERDUGO, and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

1:07-CV-00577-OWW-GSA

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Hearing: July 8, 2008

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Courtroom: 3

Judge: The Hon. Oliver W. Wanger

A hearing was held on defendants’ motions in limine on July 8, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. 

After considering the briefs, arguments and evidence, the court rules and orders as follows:

1. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1, to preclude plaintiff from introducing character

evidence of defendants or other witnesses. 

The motion is granted. The parties and counsel may not solicit testimony, or present

evidence of good or bad character for the purpose of demonstrating that a person acted in

accordance with the characteristic.

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 62 Filed 08/14/08 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

Order on Defendants’ Motions in Limine.

2

2. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2, to preclude plaintiff from introducing evidence

of Officer Makel’s transfer. 

The motion is granted. Plaintiff, his counsel and through counsel, plaintiff’s witnesses may

not testify or offer evidence regarding Officer Makel’s transfer from Fresno to Santa Fe Springs.

3. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3, to exclude testimony in the form of expert

opinions.

The motion is granted. No experts have been designated. The parties and counsel,

therefore, may not solicit testimony or offer evidence in the form of expert opinions. This ruling

does not preclude offering lay opinion that is otherwise admissible. This ruling also does not

preclude testimony of observations made by medical personnel which do not include opinion

testimony.

4. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4, to exclude testimony or evidence regarding

whether any judgment against defendant may be paid by the CHP or State.

The motion is granted. Plaintiff, his counsel and through counsel, plaintiff’s witnesses may

not testify or offer evidence regarding whether the CHP or State of California would pay any

judgment rendered against the defendants.

5. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5, to exclude the testimony of undisclosed witnesses.

The motion is granted. The parties may not call as witnesses previously undisclosed

witnesses including Emma Gizar McAfee and Joshua Lutz.

6. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6, to exclude introduction of all documents and

testimony related to costs and damages not previously disclosed.

The motion is granted. Plaintiff, his counsel and through counsel, plaintiff’s witnesses may

not testify or offer evidence regarding any damages or costs not previously disclosed in

discovery.

7. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7, to preclude plaintiff from introducing evidence

or testimony regarding absence of criminal prosecution or dropping charges by the

district attorney.

The motion is granted. Plaintiff, his counsel and through counsel plaintiff’s witnesses may

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 62 Filed 08/14/08 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

Order on Defendants’ Motions in Limine.

3

not testify or offer evidence regarding the absence of criminal prosecution or the dropping of

charges by the Fresno County District Attorney for the purpose of demonstrating that plaintiff’s

arrest was not supported by probable cause. Plaintiff may testify, subject to a limiting

instruction, regarding ongoing anxiety based on the fact that the statutes of limitation for the

crimes for which he was arrested have not elapsed.

8. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8, to exclude testimony or evidence of settlement

offers and/or negotiations.

The motion is granted. The parties and counsel may not solicit testimony of, or present

evidence of any settlement discussions or offers to compromise.

9. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 9, to preclude plaintiff from introducing evidence

or testimony regarding plaintiff’s character.

The motion is granted. Plaintiff, his counsel and through counsel plaintiff’s witnesses may

not testify or offer evidence regarding plaintiff’s good character including the absence of any

prior arrests, plaintiff’s qualification and license as a pilot, awards or other special recognition. 

This ruling does not preclude plaintiff from describing his work history in general terms or

testifying regarding experiences that are relevant to his claims in this action.

10. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 10, to preclude plaintiff from introducing evidence

or testimony of damages in the form of excessive bail.

The motion is denied. Although plaintiff has not made a claim under the Eighth

Amendment, he may present evidence of the cost to obtain bail as an item of special damages.

11. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 11, to preclude plaintiff from introducing evidence

or testimony in the form of lay opinion regarding whether defendants used excessive

force or whether plaintiff resisted arrest.

The motion is granted. Plaintiff, his counsel and through counsel plaintiff’s witnesses may

not testify or offer evidence in the form of opinions that excessive force was used or whether or

not plaintiff was resisting arrest. This ruling does not preclude parties from offering testimony

describing whether plaintiff was resisting - subject to a limiting instruction that such testimony

should not be accepted as a legal conclusion.

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 62 Filed 08/14/08 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

Order on Defendants’ Motions in Limine.

4

12. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 12, to preclude plaintiff from introducing evidence

or testimony in the form of lay opinion regarding temperature and weather at the time

of arrest.

The motion is granted. Plaintiff, his counsel and through counsel plaintiff’s witnesses may

not testify or offer evidence in the form of opinions regarding the temperature at the time of

plaintiffs’ arrest. This ruling does not preclude testimony regarding general impressions or

recollections regarding whether it was “hot” or “cold” etc.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 62 Filed 08/14/08 Page 4 of 4