Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00343/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00343-12/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

CRIME JUSTICE & AMERICA, INC. ,

ET AL.,

Plaintiffs

v.

JERRY W. SMITH,

Defendant.

No. 2:08-cv-00343-TLN-EFB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs Crime, Justice & America, Inc. and 

Ray Hrdlicka’s Request for Reconsideration of this Court’s ruling on the parties’ motions in 

limine (ECF No. 109). On October 3, 2014, this Court issued an Order in which it granted 

Defendant Smith’s motion to exclude letters from prison inmates concerning the utility of 

Plaintiffs’ publication. (Order, ECF No. 107.) In its ruling, the Court found that the letters would 

be offered as direct evidence of one of the main contentions in this case: whether distribution of 

the publication would cause inmates to engage in nefarious actions and increase the improper use 

of paper by inmates. The Court stated that “since the inmates address these issues in their letters, 

and Plaintiffs would use these letters to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the letters are 

hearsay.” (ECF No. 107 at 5.) In its order, the Court also stated that “should Plaintiffs proffer a 

valid hearsay exception for offering such evidence at trial, the Court would be inclined to 

Case 2:08-cv-00343-TLN-EFB Document 111 Filed 10/23/14 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

reconsider its ruling.” (ECF No. 107 at 5 (emphasis added).) Plaintiffs have filed the above 

motion under the guise that the Court invited additional briefing on the matter. (Plaintiffs’ Mot. 

for Recon, ECF No. 109 (stating “[t]he Court specifically invited Plaintiffs to file a memorandum 

seeking reconsideration of its ruling.”).) The Court did no such thing. The Court is not 

persuaded by Plaintiffs’ briefing and stands by its original ruling. As the Court articulated in its 

previous order, should Plaintiffs proffer a valid hearsay exception during the course of trial, the 

Court would reconsider its position at that time. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration 

(ECF No. 109) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2014

Case 2:08-cv-00343-TLN-EFB Document 111 Filed 10/23/14 Page 2 of 2