Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00305/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00305-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

On November 30, 2006, defense counsel filed a declaration in *

which she states that “Defendants are unable to locate any ruling of the

Court regarding the ‘Motions in Limine’ of the Defendants set forth in

the Joint Pre-Trial Statement . . . .” (Tonon Decl. at 2.) The

referenced portions of the parties’ Joint Pre-Trial Statement do not

constitute motions in limine; however, in considering defense counsel’s

declaration, it was discovered that a ruling never issued on the

parties’ “Stipulation Re Evidentiary Disagreements” filed October 11,

2005. Accordingly, the following Order issues.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY WARD, )

) 2:04-cv-0305-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

)

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, a ) 

Political Division of State of )

California; SOUTH LAKE TAHOE )

POLICE DEPARTMENT; POLICE OFFICER )

D. BAKER; POLICE OFFICER EVANS; )

and POLICE OFFICER RAMIREZ, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

Two motions in limine were filed October 11, 2005. The

first motion argues the proffered testimony of “[P]laintiff’s experts

Conrad Bedstead and Ken C. Merrill . . . lacks proper foundation.” 

Case 2:04-cv-00305-GEB -DAD Document 66 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 2
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

(Stipulation Re Evidentiary Disagreements at 1.) Since it is unclear

whether sufficient foundation exists for the proffered testimony, the

motion is denied.

Second, “Defendants . . . object that anticipated testimony

from [P]laintiff’s experts, Conrad Bewdstead and Ken C. Merill is

cumulative” and should be excluded under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules

of Evidence. (Id. at 2.) The record is insufficient for an in limine

ruling on this basis; therefore, the motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00305-GEB -DAD Document 66 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 2