Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02427/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02427-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. 2:10-CV-2427VAP Date: October 20, 2015 

Title: DENNIS GERALD CLAIBORNE -v- BLAUSER, ET AL.

===============================================================

PRESENT: HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Marva Dillard None Present

Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR

PLAINTIFFS:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR

DEFENDANTS:

None None

PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS

IN LIMINE (DOC. 138) AND PLAINTIFF'S VARIOUS

MOTIONS (DOCS. 129, 162, 165)

On February 2, 2015, Defendants J. Blauser and G. Martin ("Defendants") filed

Motions in Limine. (Doc. 138.) Plaintiff Dennis G. Claiborne ("Plaintiff") filed an

Opposition on March 3, 2015. (Doc. 146.) On July 15, 2015, Judge John A.

Mendez denied the Motions without prejudice. (Doc. 159.) At the pretrial

conference conducted on September 29, 2015, the Court granted Defendants'

request to deem the Motions resubmitted.

Plaintiff has also filed various Motions in this matter: (1) an Omnibus Motion

(Doc. 129) on October 28, 2014; (2) a Motion to Quash, Objection to Defendants'

Consent to Jurisdiction, and a Formal Accusation for Contempt (Doc. 162); and (3) a

Motion for Judgment (Doc. 165).

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _________

CIVIL -- GEN Page 1

Case 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 177 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 8
EDCV 10-02427 VAP

DENNIS GERALD CLAIBORNE V. BLAUSER, ET AL.

MINUTE ORDER of October 20, 2015

After considering the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the

Motions, the Court issues its rulings as follows:

I. DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE (DOC. 138)

A. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1 ("DMIL #1"): Limiting Plaintiff's

Testimony Concerning the Nature and Extent of any Alleged Injuries --

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part 

Defendants move to "prohibit Plaintiff from testifying about his medical records

or offer an opinion on the issue of causation" because Plaintiff "lacks competent

medical expertise to offer opinions or inferences about the nature and extent of his

alleged injuries."1

 (Motions in Limine at 2.) The Court holds that the Motion is overly

broad and thus GRANTS it in part and DENIES it in part.

Under Rule 702, a witness may testify as to "scientific, technical, or other

specialized knowledge," if he is "qualified as an expert." See Fed. R. Evid. 702. "If

a witness is not testifying as an expert," his testimony must be (1) "rationally based"

on his perception, (2) "helpful," and (3) "not based on scientific, technical, or other

specialized knowledge." Fed. R. Evid. 701. 

Here, there is no indication that Plaintiff is qualified as a medical expert.

Accordingly, Plaintiff "will not be permitted to offer any medical opinion or to report

what any medical professionals told him about his condition." See Jacobs v.

Woodford, No. 1:08-cv-00369-JLT, 2013 WL 322010, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2013). 

Plaintiff, however, "may testify about his own perceptions of what he felt when the

injury occurred and how it feels now, how his physical condition impacts his life and

as to any other information that is within his own personal knowledge based on his

own perceptions." See id.; Shorter v. Baca,Case No. CV 12-7337-DOC (AGRx),

2015 WL 1809282, at 15 n.7 (C.D. Cal. April 21, 2015) (holding that "much of

1

Defendants also object to the medical records that Plaintiff has filed with this

Court. (Motions in Limine at 2.) Defendants, however, are primarily concerned with

the records because Plaintiff may introduce them and testify about them. (See

Motions in Limine at 2.) Accordingly, the Court only addresses the extent to which

Plaintiff may testify about the records. 

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _________

CIVIL -- GEN Page 2

Case 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 177 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 8
EDCV 10-02427 VAP

DENNIS GERALD CLAIBORNE V. BLAUSER, ET AL.

MINUTE ORDER of October 20, 2015

Plaintiff's evidence regarding her diagnosis and need for specific medical treatment

would be inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702" but that she would be

able to testify about matters based on "her own perceptions"). 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part DMIL #1.

B. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 ("DMIL #2"): Limiting Plaintiff's

Testimony about any Claims or Defendants that have been Dismissed --

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part 

On September 29, 2011, Judge Lawrence K. Karlton adopted in full the

findings and recommendations of U.S. Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan and

ordered that (1) "[t]he allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state

potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment . . . claims against defendants Blauser and

Martin" and (2) "[a]ll remaining claims and defendants are dismissed with leave to

amend." (Screening Order (Doc. 22) at 14.) Although the Court gave Plaintiff "30

days . . . [to] amend his complaint," Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint

against the defendants who were previously dismissed -- Warden McDonald,

correctional sergeant Gullion, and correctional officer McBride ("Dismissed

Defendants"). (Id.) Accordingly, his case proceeds to trial only against the two

remaining Defendants, Blauser and Martin.

Defendants claim that Plaintiff has continued to refer to the Dismissed

Defendants in his pleadings, despite the Court's Screening Order dismissing them

from the case. (Motions in Limine at 3.) Citing Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402,

Defendants "move for an instruction barring Plaintiff from referring to or introducing

any evidence relating to claims or defendants that have been dismissed." (Id.) As

with DMIL #1, the Court finds the relief sought overly broad and thus GRANTS the

Motion in part and DENIES it in part.

Relevant evidence is that which has any tendency to make the existence of

any fact of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the

evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence is admissible subject to certain

exceptions, while irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 402.

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _________

CIVIL -- GEN Page 3

Case 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 177 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 8
EDCV 10-02427 VAP

DENNIS GERALD CLAIBORNE V. BLAUSER, ET AL.

MINUTE ORDER of October 20, 2015

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence about or refer to his

earlier allegations against the Dismissed Defendants or their earlier status as

defendants, the Court grants DMIL #2. Such references are irrelevant as to whether

Defendants violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights and thus are excluded. The

Court notes, however, that Plaintiff may need to refer to the Dismissed Defendants

in order to present a coherent, comprehensive story to the jury. In this sense,

"Plaintiff should not be precluded from offering background facts regarding the

events at issue, which may include facts related to his dismissed claims." See

Saenz v. Reeves, No. 1:09-cv-00057-BAM PC, 2013 WL 2481733, at *5 (E.D. Cal.

June 10, 2013). What is more, Defendants have provided "no authority . . . to

support the proposition that evidence is irrelevant simply because it refers to claims

or parties that were dismissed." See Morris v. Long, No. 1:08-cv-01422-AWI-MJS,

2012 WL 1498889, at *8 (E.D. Cal. April 27, 2012). 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part DMIL #2.

C. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 3 ("DMIL #3"): Limiting Plaintiff's 

Testimony about the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment -- GRANTED

Defendant Blauser's decision to litigate Plaintiff's excessive force claim, rather

than to file a motion for summary judgment, does not constitute an admission of

liability on this count, and Plaintiff may not argue or suggest that it is such an

admission during trial.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS DMIL #3.

D. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 4 ("DMIL #4"): Limiting Plaintiff's

Testimony about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or any

Alleged ADA Violations -- GRANTED

Defendants also seek to bar Plaintiff "from testifying about the ADA," as "[t]his

is not an ADA case, and the ADA's standards [are not] relevant here." (Motions in

Limine at 4.) The Court agrees. 

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _________

CIVIL -- GEN Page 4

Case 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 177 Filed 10/20/15 Page 4 of 8
EDCV 10-02427 VAP

DENNIS GERALD CLAIBORNE V. BLAUSER, ET AL.

MINUTE ORDER of October 20, 2015

Plaintiff has asserted claims under the Eighth Amendment, not under the ADA. 

Plaintiff's references to the ADA are thus irrelevant and improper for purposes of this

case. See Fed. R. Evid. 402.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS DMIL #4.

E. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 5 ("DMIL #5"): Limiting Plaintiff's

Testimony about the Defendants' Alleged Perjury -- GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part

In his Trial Brief, Plaintiff has asked that the jury be instructed on "false

statement" and "perjury," and has included a section in his Brief about the relevant

law as to both claims. (Doc. 121 at 5, 13.) Perjury, however, is a criminal offense

requiring prosecution by the appropriate prosecuting authority. This is a civil case

concerning Plaintiff's claim that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

Defendants ask that the Court prohibit Plaintiff "from using the terms 'perjury'

or 'false statement,' or similar terms," arguing that "even the slightest reference . . .

will unfairly prejudice them and mislead the jury." (See Motions in Limine at 5.) 

Defendants' request is overly broad, and the Court DENIES it in part and GRANTS it

in part.

Certain discovery tools require a party to respond honestly and truthfully. For

example, interrogatories must "be answered separately and fully in writing under

oath." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) (emphasis added). If the answers are "not sworn or

notarized, such oaths should take substantially the following form: 'I declare . . .

under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." McClellan v. Kern

Cty. Sheriff's Office, No. 1:10-cv-0386-LJO-MJS (PC), 2015 WL 4598871, at *2 (E.D.

Cal. July 28, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2)). 

To the extent that Plaintiff inquires about the duty to answer truthfully in order

to undermine a witness's credibility, DMIL #5 is denied. As Defendants themselves

acknowledge, "Plaintiff will remain free to impeach the Defendants with any

inconsistent statements, and to argue the inferences that he believes should be

drawn from the inconsistencies." (Motions in Limine at 5.) To the extent that

Plaintiff focuses on such inconsistencies to prove perjury, DMIL #5 is granted. As

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _________

CIVIL -- GEN Page 5

Case 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 177 Filed 10/20/15 Page 5 of 8
EDCV 10-02427 VAP

DENNIS GERALD CLAIBORNE V. BLAUSER, ET AL.

MINUTE ORDER of October 20, 2015

stated above, this case is about whether Defendants violated the Eighth

Amendment, not whether they committed perjury. Such references would therefore

be irrelevant and thus inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. 

The Court, of course, retains the right to control questioning and to exclude

evidence if its probative value is "substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair

prejudice, . . . misleading the jury, [or] . . . wasting time." See Fed. R. Evid. 403. To

the extent that Plaintiff repeatedly refers to or introduces evidence about

Defendants' alleged perjury, the Court, in its discretion, may instruct the jury to use

the evidence only for its proper purpose, redact the offensive portions, or exclude

the evidence altogether.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part DMIL #5. 

II. PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS (DOCS. 129, 162, 165)

A. Omnibus Motion (Doc. 129) -- MOOT 

In his Omnibus Motion, Plaintiff requests that Defendants provide him with "an

identification of each document or other exhibit" that they "expect[] to offer and those

[they] may offer if the need arises," along with a "description by category and

location of all documents" that the Defendants have in their "possession, custody, or

control." Plaintiff's requests are essentially discovery requests under Fed. R. Civ. P.

26.

In its Pretrial Conference Order from March 21, 2014, the Court listed all the

exhibits that "Defendants expect to use . . . at trial." (Pretrial Order (Doc. 124) at 11-

12.) Furthermore, Defendants should have "mail[ed] copies of their exhibits,

schedules, and summaries and other items they anticipate offering into evidence to

[Plaintiff] no later than twenty-eight day[s] before trial." (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff filed his

Omnibus Motion almost a year ago on October 28, 2014. Plaintiff does not now

claim that Defendants failed to provide him with the requisite documents, and in any

event has the exhibit list as set forth in the Court's Pretrial Order. 

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff's Omnibus Motion MOOT.

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _________

CIVIL -- GEN Page 6

Case 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 177 Filed 10/20/15 Page 6 of 8
EDCV 10-02427 VAP

DENNIS GERALD CLAIBORNE V. BLAUSER, ET AL.

MINUTE ORDER of October 20, 2015

B. Motion to Quash, Objection to Defendants' Consent to Jurisdiction, and a

Formal Accusation for Contempt ("Motion to Quash") (Doc. 162) --

DENIED

In his Motion to Quash, Plaintiff first claims that Defendants consented to

jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge in order to avoid his accusations of contempt

and his motions for sanctions. (See Doc. 162 at 1-2.) The Court finds this part of

Plaintiff's Motion MOOT. This case is being tried before a District Judge, not a

Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff's Motion to Quash also accuses Defendants of adjusting their

discovery responses in "bad faith," and including "fraudulent statements" in their

responses. (Motion to Quash, Exh. 2, at 3.) The Court finds that Plaintiff essentially

accuses Defendants of perjury. Contradictory statements in discovery responses,

without more, do not suffice as proof of perjury. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff's Motion to Quash to the extent that it asks the Court to consider his claim of

perjury. 

Plaintiff has also requested that the Court impose on Defendants sanctions

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. (Exh. 2 at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff cites to Roadway Exp.

Inc. v. Piper, where the Supreme Court held that "Rule 37 sanctions must be applied

diligently both to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a

sanction, and to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence

of such a deterrent." 448 U.S. 752, 763-64 (1980) (citations omitted) (internal

quotation marks omitted). "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) authorizes

sanctions for failure to comply with discovery orders." Id. at 763. Here, Plaintiff

provides no basis for sanctions, as his Motion to Quash does not identify what

discovery order Defendants have violated or how they violated it. Plaintiff asserts

that Defendants' "purposeful bad acts" can be found in "Exhibits 1 to 13 and 14 to

24" and "Exhibits numbered 16, 17, and 18." (Exh. 2 at 3.) Many of these Exhibits

are Defendants' requests for an extension of time to, for example, respond to

Plaintiff's discovery requests and to file a responsive pleading. (Exh. 2, Exhibit List.)

None of these documents indicate a "failure to comply with discovery orders." See

Roadway, 448 U.S. at 763. 

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _________

CIVIL -- GEN Page 7

Case 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 177 Filed 10/20/15 Page 7 of 8
EDCV 10-02427 VAP

DENNIS GERALD CLAIBORNE V. BLAUSER, ET AL.

MINUTE ORDER of October 20, 2015

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Quash to the extent it asks

for sanctions. 

C. Motion for Judgment (Doc. 165) -- DENIED

Plaintiff asks the Court to grant its previous Motion to Quash (Doc. 162)

because Defendants have "faile[d] to timely respond." (Doc. 165 at 1.) 

As Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment merely duplicates his previous Motion to

Quash, his Motion for Judgment is DENIED. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court:

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part DMIL #1 limiting Plaintiff's testimony

concerning the nature and extent of any alleged injuries;

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part DMIL #2 limiting Plaintiff's testimony

about any claims or defendants that have been dismissed;

GRANTS DMIL #3 limiting Plaintiff's testimony about the Defendants' Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment; 

GRANTS DMIL #4 limiting Plaintiff's testimony about the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) or any alleged ADA violations;

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part DMIL #5 limiting Plaintiff's testimony

about the Defendants' alleged perjury ;

Finds Plaintiff's Omnibus Motion MOOT;

DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Quash; and,

DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _________

CIVIL -- GEN Page 8

Case 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 177 Filed 10/20/15 Page 8 of 8