Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00121/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00121-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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- 06cv121.o.mil.1.4.wpd

ROBERT MANN, CSB 48293

DONALD W. COOK, CSB 116666

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900

Los Angeles, CA 90010

(213) 252-9444 (voice) / (213) 252-0091 facsimile

doncook@earthlink.net

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACEY BROWN

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF KERN, KERN COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, KERN

COUNTY SHERIFF MACK WIMBISH,

KERN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY

PRATT (#200536), KERN COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPUTY HAISLIP, and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, sued in

both their individual and official

capacities,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:06-CV-00121-

OWW-TAG

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1

THROUGH 4

Trial date: 4/15/08

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Ctrm: 3 (Fresno)

Following the April 4, 2008 argument of counsel on plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

Nos. 1 through 4, the Court rules as follows:

Re Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (prior arrests/convictions)

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants and their witnesses shall

not make reference to any prior or subsequent arrest of plaintiff, or of any misdemeanor

conviction.

Case 1:06-cv-00121-OWW -TAG Document 90 Filed 04/18/08 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- 06cv121.o.mil.1.4.wpd

For purposes of impeaching plaintiff’s credibility only, defendants may use the fact

of plaintiff’s felony conviction for second degree burglary arising out of this incident.

Defendants may also use the fact that plaintiff has sustained additional felony

convictions, for purposes of impeachment of plaintiff’s credibility only. The Court

understands that the parties will enter into a stipulation to the effect that in addition to the

felony conviction for second degree burglary, plaintiff has sustained two or more prior

felony convictions.

Re Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 (information known by the deputies)

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendants are barred from calling any witness

to testify on information allegedly relied upon by defendant Sean Pratt in using force

against plaintiff, and defendant Royce Haislip, other than defendants Pratt and Haislip.

However, this ruling is without prejudice to defendants calling witnesses to corroborate

the information Sean Pratt and/or Royce Haislip testified they relied on, should the Court

find that defendants’ state of knowledge has become an issue in dispute. It is the Court’s

understanding that defendants Pratt and Haislip will testify before other deputies involved

in plaintiff’s detention or arrest.

Re Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3 (opinion testimony on a witness’s credibility)

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendants are barred eliciting any testimony on

whether plaintiff or any other witness has an opinion, or believes, that any other witness

has told the truth or is not credible. However, the parties are not precluded from offering

such testimony upon satisfying Rule 608(a), Federal Rules of Evidence.

Re Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 (consumption of illegal drugs)

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendants are precluded from offering any

evidence that plaintiff or any other witness had consumed any illegal drugs at any time.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00121-OWW -TAG Document 90 Filed 04/18/08 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- 06cv121.o.mil.1.4.wpd

Re Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 5 (testimony by defense expert Zwickey)

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defense expert witness Jared Zwickey

is precluded from testifying to any legal opinion, including an opinion that defendants’

conduct was conformity with law. However, Zwickey may testify to police practices,

including training and tactics, for which he is qualified, and the application of those

practices to the facts of plaintiff’s arrest. Thisincludesthe training and tactics for the use

of police dogs.

DATED: April 17, 2008

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

OLIVER W. WANGER

Judge, United States District Court

Case 1:06-cv-00121-OWW -TAG Document 90 Filed 04/18/08 Page 3 of 3