Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290-34/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

Plaintiff Durrell A. Puckett is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both parties have consented to United States magistrate judge 

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 46.) 

This case is set for jury trial before the undersigned on October 11, 2016, on Plaintiff’s claim 

of retaliation against Defendant Brandon. 

On August 26, 2016, Defendant filed motions in limine. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff filed an 

opposition on September 8, 2016, and Defendant filed a reply on September 16, 2016. (ECF Nos. 87, 

95.) 

On October 6, 2016, the Court held a telephonic motions in limine hearing, and Plaintiff 

appeared pro se and Deputy Attorney General, Lawrence Bragg appeared on behalf of Defendant 

Brandon. 

///

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

K. BRANDON,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00290-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

[ECF No. 83]

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 113 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 5
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

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence in a 

particular area.” United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009). A party may use a 

motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before it is actually introduced at 

trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). “[A] motion in limine is an important 

tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded management of the trial 

proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436,440 (7th Cir. 1997). A 

motion in limine allows the parties to resolve evidentiary disputes before trial and avoids potentially 

prejudicial evidence being presented in front of the jury, thereby relieving the trial judge from the 

formidable task of neutralizing the taint of prejudicial evidence. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 

1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003). 

II.

MOTIONS IN LIMINE1

A. Defendant’s Motions in Limine

Defendant seeks to exclude the following: (1) Plaintiff’s expert witnesses; (2) testimony by 

Plaintiff regarding medical or mental health diagnosis, opinions, inferences or causation; (3) 

introduction of Plaintiff’s medical or mental health records; (4) questioning by Plaintiff of Defendant 

Brandon about any matters contained in her personnel records; (5) questioning by Plaintiff concerning 

Defendant Brandon’s family status and personal relationship; and (6) introduction of Defendant 

Brandon’s financial condition unless and until the trier of fact determines punitive damages are 

appropriate. The Court will each address each motion separately below. 

1. Exclusion of Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses

Plaintiff’s pretrial conference statement does not list any expert witnesses who may be called 

to testify by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff did not submit a disclosure of expert witnesses. 

 

1

Plaintiff did not file any motions in limine. 

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 113 Filed 10/07/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Ruling: Defendant correctly submits that since Plaintiff has failed to comply with the 

procedures concerning the disclosure of expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(a)(2), Plaintiff is not allowed to call any expert witnesses to testify at trial. 

2. Limiting Plaintiff’s Testimony

Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from introducing any opinion evidence regarding 

medical opinions or inferences as to the nature and extent of his alleged injuries. Fed. R. Evid. 701. 

“If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one 

that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the 

witness’s testimony or determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other 

specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.” Fed. R. Evid. 701. 

As a non-expert witness, Plaintiff may testify as to what he saw or felt relating to his medical 

needs or condition, but may not testify as to any medical matter which requires scientific, technical or 

other specialized knowledge. Plaintiff also may not testify regarding his medical records. 

Ruling: Defendant’s motion to exclude medical expert testimony by Plaintiff is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff may testify as to what he experienced as a result of the retaliation; however, Plaintiff may not 

testify regarding a diagnosis, opinions, inferences or causation, and may not offer any opinions or 

inferences from any medical records. 

3. Exclusion of Medical or Mental Health Records 

Defendant objects to Plaintiff introducing his medical or mental health records into evidence 

on grounds of lack of foundation, irrelevance, and inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 602, 

801, 802. Plaintiff’s medical and mental health records constitute out-of-court statements composed 

by third parties, which are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802, 803. In addition, Plaintiff will be unable to lay 

a foundation for these records composed by third parties as he lacks personal knowledge concerning 

the content of these records. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Furthermore, the medical and mental records contain 

opinions which can only be offered by a medical or mental health expert. 

Ruling: Defendant’s motion to exclude is DENIED, without prejudice. The Court cannot 

determine any foundation, relevance, and admissibility issues unless and until the documents are 

attempted to be introduced at trial. 

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 113 Filed 10/07/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

4. Questioning Regarding Concerning Personnel Matters, Prior Complaints Concerning 

Job Performance, or Prior Disciplinary Issues Related to Defendant Brandon

Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from questioning her about any matters contained in her 

personnel records, which includes information of a personal nature, as well as any information 

concerning any disciplinary actions or complaints filed against her. 

Rule 404(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:

Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in 

order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Ruling: Defendant’s motion to exclude questioning regarding personnel matter is GRANTED, 

as such evidence is not relevant and is subject to exclusion under Rule 404(b)(1). 

5. Questioning Concerning Defendant Brandon’s Family Status and Personal 

Relationships

Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from questioning her regarding her marital status, family 

status, or personal relationships outside the prison setting. Defendant submits that information 

concerning her marital and family status and personal relationships outside the prison setting are not 

relevant to the issues of whether Brandon refused to feed Plaintiff, searched his cell, or destroyed his 

personal property under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Further, testimony concerning her marital and 

family status and personal relationships outside the prison setting would result in undue delay and 

waste of time and possibly could confuse the issues and mislead the jury, under Federal Rule of 

Evidence 403. 

Ruling: Defendant’s motion to exclude questioning regarding Defendant Brandon’s family 

status and personal relationships is GRANTED. 

6. Preclusion of Evidence of Defendant Brandon’s Financial Condition Unless and Until 

the Trier of Fact Determines Punitive Damages are Appropriate

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendant Brandon. Brandon seeks to bifurcate the 

trial on the issue of punitive damages, and it is the Court’s practice to bifurcate such issue. 

Ruling: Defendant’s motion to preclude evidence of Defendant Brandon’s financial condition 

unless and until the trier of fact determines punitive damages are appropriate is GRANTED. The issue 

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 113 Filed 10/07/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

of punitive damages is bifurcated, and evidence of Defendant’s financial condition during the initial 

trial is not relevant and is more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 113 Filed 10/07/16 Page 5 of 5