Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00404/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00404-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DILLMAN, and STEPHEN 

DILLMAN, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEPUTY DAVID VASQUEZ,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00404-SKO

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS

IN LIMINE AND OBJECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS

(Docs. 140, 149)

On May 4, 2015, the Court conducted a hearing on Defendant’s motions in limine 

(“MILs”). (Docs. 140; 149.) Plaintiffs Michael Dillman and Stephen Dillman (collectively 

“Plaintiffs”) appeared through their counsel, Joseph L. Wright, Esq., and Defendant Deputy David 

Vasquez (“Defendant”) appeared through his counsel, James T. Anwyl, Esq., and Lynn A. Garcia, 

Esq. As set forth in open court at the May 4, 2015 hearing, the Court issues the following rulings 

on Defendant’s MILs and objections to Plaintiffs’ final exhibit list.

A. Defendant’s Motions in Limine

On April 28, 2015, Defendant filed his MIL to exclude Michael Dillman’s testimony 

regarding his own Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Doc. 140), and on May 1, 2015, Defendant 

filed his supplemental brief to MIL No. 15 and objection to any testimony concerning PostTraumatic Stress Disorder or any treatment therefor (Doc. 149). Plaintiffs did not file any 

opposition. 

Case 1:13-cv-00404-SKO Document 164 Filed 05/06/15 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

At the hearing on May 4, 2015, the Court gave Plaintiffs the opportunity to oppose the 

motions in open court and on the record, and Plaintiffs conceded both motions. The Court rules as 

follows: 

1. Defendant’s MIL No. 15 - As Plaintiffs have stipulated this motion may be 

granted, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to any testimony concerning Michael Dillman’s 

diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or any treatment as a result of that diagnosis. 

2. Defendant’s MIL No. 18 - As Plaintiffs have stipulated this motion may be 

granted, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to exclude any testimony by Michael Dillman 

regarding his own Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

B. Defendant’s Exhibits to Plaintiffs’ Final Exhibit List

On April 24, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their final exhibit list, including for the first time as 

exhibits copies of the California Department of Motor Vehicles website and two sections of the 

California Vehicle Code. (Doc. 128.) On April 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Request for Judicial 

Notice asking this Court to take judicial notice of “the California Vehicle Code and DMV Vessel 

Registration Requirements.” (Doc. 137.) On April 28, 2015, Defendant filed his objections to 

Plaintiffs’ final exhibit list. (Doc. 144.) Plaintiffs did not file any opposition. 

At the hearing on May 4, 2015, the Court gave Plaintiffs the opportunity to oppose 

Defendant’s objections in open court and on the record, and Plaintiffs stipulated to withdraw all 

their exhibits and withdraw the Request for Judicial Notice. The Court rules as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-201 – As Plaintiffs have stipulated to withdraw this exhibit, 

the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s objection to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-201, a letter of admission to 

the Veteran’s Affairs Department Men’s Trauma Recovery Rehabilitation Program, dated 

September 2012. 

2. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-202 – As Plaintiffs have stipulated to withdraw this exhibit, 

the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s objection to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-202, Michael Dillman’s Form 

DD214. 

3. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-203 - As Plaintiffs have stipulated this is an incorrect version 

of Defense Exhibit D-507, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-203 is withdrawn. The parties shall meet and 

Case 1:13-cv-00404-SKO Document 164 Filed 05/06/15 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

confer to agree whether the correct version currently marked Defense Exhibit D-507 will be 

remarked as a Joint Exhibit for use during trial. 

4. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-204 – As Plaintiffs have stipulated to withdraw this exhibit 

and their Request that the exhibit be judicially noticed, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s 

objection to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-204, California Vehicle Code Section 9840-9845. 

5. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-205 – As Plaintiffs have stipulated to withdraw this exhibit 

and their Request that the exhibit be judicially noticed, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s 

objection to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-205, California Vehicle Code Section 9850-9853.2.

6. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-206 – As Plaintiffs have stipulated to withdraw this exhibit 

and their Request that the exhibit be judicially noticed, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s 

objection to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-206, a printed out copy of the California Department of Motor 

Vehicles webpage regarding vessel boat registration and information. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00404-SKO Document 164 Filed 05/06/15 Page 3 of 3