Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05971/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05971-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF JENNIFER LYNN LE

BLANC, et. al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COUNTY OF TULARE, et al.,

)

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:04cv5971 DLB

ORDER AFTER FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE

Jury Trial: March 26, 2007, 9:00 a.m.,

Courtroom 9 (DLB)

Pursuant to the September 13, 2006 Pretrial Order, on March 9, 2007, the Court

conducted a final pretrial conference and hearing on the parties’ motions in limine. Robert

Navarro appeared on behalf of plaintiff Dennis Le Blanc and Bruce D. Praet appeared on behalf

of defendant Sgt. R. Wilkinson. 

Based on the discussions at the hearing, the trial date is advanced to March 26, 2007 in

Courtroom 9 before the undersigned.

Consistent with the rulings made at the hearing, the Court issues the following Orders on

the parties’ motions in limine:

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05971-DLB Document 99 Filed 03/13/07 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

A. PLAINTIFF’S CONSOLIDATED MOTIONS IN LIMINE FILED FEBRUARY 7,

2007.

1. Motion in Limine No. 1 - Standard of Proof.

After arguments from counsel, the Court took this motion under submission and will

issue a written order prior to trial. 

2. Motion in Limine No. 2 - Admission of Graphic Exhibits.

The Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 2 in part. The photographs plaintiff

seeks to introduce are unnecessary as the pathologist will be able to testify regarding the blood on

the decedents hand. The parties shall confer regarding the Tulare County District Attorneys’

Office video.

3. Motion in Limine No. 3 - Jury View or Model of Hallway.

The Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 3 without prejudice to plaintiff

presenting a proposed model to the Court for review.

4. Motion in Limine No. 4 - Exclusion of Evidence Relating to Louise Clark.

The Court reserves ruling on this motion in limine pending the testimony of Ms. Clark.

5. Motion in Limine No. 5 - Affirmative Defenses.

This motion in limine is GRANTED. The First Affirmative Defense asserting failure to

state a claim is STRICKEN. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the remaining

affirmative defenses which are still at issue in the case.

B. DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2007.

1. Motion in Limine No.1: Exclusion of Shooting and Autopsy Photographs.

The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion in limine No. 1.

2. Motion in Limine No. 2: Polices, Practices and Procedures. 

The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion in limine No. 2 except that evidence regarding

the Lindsay Police Department’s policies, practices and procedures relating to the use of deadly

force and the United States Constitutional Standards regarding the use of deadly force may be

Case 1:04-cv-05971-DLB Document 99 Filed 03/13/07 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

introduced.

3. Motion in Limine No. 3: Source of Award of Compensation.

The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion in limine No. 3.

4. Motion in Limine No. 4: Other Incidents by R. Wilkinson.

The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion in limine No. 4.

5. Motion in Limine No. 5: Mercier Testimony.

The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion in limine No. 5 as to post-shooting emotions

and/or experience.

6. Motion in Limine No. 6: Asserted Privileges by Wilkinson.

The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion in limine No. 6.

7. Motion in Limine No. 7: Planning, Service and Execution of Search Warrant.

 The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion in limine No. 7, except that foundational evidence

regarding the underlying crime, obtaining the search warrant, the officer briefing prior to the

execution of the search warrant and the execution of the search warrant may be introduced.

8. Motion in Limine No. 8: Testimony of Robert Feliciano.

The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion in limine No. 8 in part. Mr. Feliciano may only

offer his opinions directly related to the actual shooting by Sgt. Wilkinson in relation to

plaintiff’s 14 Amendment claim. Mr. Feliciano may not testify regarding the practices or th

standards of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department.

9. Motion in Limine No. 9: “Code of Silence.”

The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion in limine No. 9.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05971-DLB Document 99 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 3