Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00457-11/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT E. HUNTER, D.V.M., )

individually and as class ) 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-EFB

representative for all others )

similarly situated; HOWARD ELEY, ) ORDER ADDRESSING 

individually and as class ) MOTIONS IN LIMINE

representative for all others )

similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) 

)

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S )

DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF LOU BLANAS, in )

his individual and official )

capacity; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; )

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; )

JAN SCULLY; WILLIAM KEVIN SOWLES; )

SHERIFF JOHN MCGINNESS, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

Motions in limine were filed October 14, 2008: 

Plaintiffs filed two motions and Defendants filed fourteen motions. 

Oppositions were filed October 20, 2008. The Final Pretrial Order

prescribes when motions in limine were to be filed and that

“Failure to state a basis for admissibility or non-admissibility of

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 98 Filed 10/24/08 Page 1 of 5
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

disputed evidence constitutes a waiver or abandonment of that

basis.” The motions are addressed below. 

I. Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine 

1. Plaintiffs move in motion number 1 to strike their

attorney from “Plaintiff’s Witness list,” but then argue that

Defendants have identified Plaintiffs’ attorney Gary Gorski as a

witness. Plaintiffs’ attorney Gary Gorski is not listed as a

witness on “Plaintiff’s Witness list,” so the motion is construed

as a motion to strike attorney Gary Gorski from Defendants’ witness

list, and so construed, is granted. 

2. Plaintiffs move in motion number 2 for an order

excluding “Defendants’ experts,” because expert witness reports

were not provided; and, for an order preventing all defense

witnesses from giving an opinion on “use of force.” Defendants

respond that Plaintiffs’ position on the listed expert witnesses is

contrary to the Ninth Circuit decision in Torres v. City of Los

Angeles, 540 F.3d 1031, 1047 (9 Cir. 2008), in which the Ninth th

Circuit stated “not all expert witnesses must provide an expert

report.” Therefore, this portion of Plaintiffs’ motion has not

been shown it should be granted. The remainder of the motion is

unclear. Therefore, the motion is denied. 

II. Defendants' Motions in Limine 

1. Defendants' motions numbers 1-4 have not been

presented in a sufficient manner for a ruling and are therefore

denied. 

2. Defendants move under Federal Rules of Evidence 402

and 403 in motion number 5 to exclude deputy District Attorney Al

Locher’s testimony. Defendants argue this witness’s proposed

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 98 Filed 10/24/08 Page 2 of 5
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

testimony concerns the response of deputy sheriffs to a riot in the

jailhouse in December 2005, which was instigated by a number of

inmates who clogged toilets on a floor of the jailhouse and refused

to obey officers’ orders to cease disruptive activity. Defendants

contend the force used to quell that riot is not similar to what is

at issue in Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. During the December 2005 riot,

“flash bang” grenades were used in six cells to extract inmates

from their cells. Defendants explain the grenade is “designed to

briefly stun and disorient but not cause injury.” 

Plaintiffs argue Locher’s “opinion is germane to the

issue . . . whether the Department condones excessive force.” But

Plaintiffs have not shown that the nature of force used in

responding to the December 2005 riot has more than marginal

probative value on the issues being tried. Since the circumstances

involved with the force used in December 2005 to extract rioting

recalcitrant prisoners from jail cells are different from the

circumstances concerning use of force at issue in Plaintiffs’

lawsuit, and the marginal probative value of this evidence is

substantially outweighed by Rule 403 considerations of possibly

misleading the jury on the force at issue and wasting time trying

use of force in response to a riot in the jailhouse, this evidence

is excluded.

Plaintiffs also respond that Locher’s opinion has

probative value on the issue whether the Sheriff Department impeded

the District Attorney’s investigation of whether criminal charges

should be filed against certain officers because of the force used

to extract rioting prisoners from jail cells. Defendants state the

District Attorney commented in a report, presumably issued on

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 98 Filed 10/24/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

whether certain officers were subject to criminal liability for

force use during the December 2005 riot, that “they felt” the

investigation was “impeded” “by the Sheriff Department officials’

assertion of the privilege afforded under state law in Lybarger v.

City of Los Angeles,40 Cal.3d 822 (1985).” Defendants explain

Lybarger is a case concerning whether statements given by a public

employee may be used against the employee in any subsequent

criminal proceeding. Plaintiffs respond that Locher “can explain

Lybarger and other discovery issues.” 

But the discovery issues involved with investigation of

the December 2005 cell extractions have not been shown to have 

probative value on what is being tried in this action. Therefore,

the evidence is excluded under Rule 403 considerations that it

could needless prolong the trial and could confuse the jury about

what is being tried. For the stated reasons, Defendants motion

number 5 is granted.

3. Defendants' motion number 6 has not been presented

in a sufficient manner for a ruling and is therefore denied. 

4. Defendants seek in motion number 7 to exclude an

audit conducted by Joseph Brann & Associates, The Brann Final

Report, and related minutes/payment/budget issues for said audit

(Plaintiff’s Exhibits S, PPP, QQQ), arguing this evidence is

inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 407.

Plaintiffs respond the “Auditors refuse[d] to address the issue of

excessive force.” Plaintiffs have not shown how the audit evidence

has probative value on an issue being tried. Therefore, in light

of Rule 403 considerations, including the concern that the evidence

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 98 Filed 10/24/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

could confuse the jury about the issues being tried, and waste time 

trying insignificant issues, this motion is granted. 

5. Defendants' motions numbers 8-14 have not been

presented in a sufficient manner for a ruling and are therefore

denied.

Dated: October 24, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 98 Filed 10/24/08 Page 5 of 5