Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00399/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00399-25/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

JESSIE L. SERRANO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SERGEANT JEFFERY L. LUCAS,

 Defendant.

1:11-cv-00399-EPG-PC

ORDER RE MOTION IN LIMINE RE 

VIDEO RECORDING 

(ECF NO. 112)

This civil rights action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, proceeds on the First 

Amended Complaint filed by state prisoner Jessie L. Serrano (APlaintiff@) on April 14, 2011,

against defendant Sergeant Jeffery L. Lucas (ADefendant”), for failure to protect Plaintiff, in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 6.)1 This case is presently set for trial on March 

8, 2016, before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.2 

On March 1, 2016, Defendant filed a late motion in limine asking for admission of a 

video recording. (ECF No. 112). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. This video recording 

was subject to heated debate in previous conferences, with Plaintiff claiming that the complete 

 

1On June 24, 2013, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable 

failure to protect claim against defendant Lucas. (ECF No. 12.)

2The parties to this action have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

' 636(c). (ECF Nos. 4, 39.) 

Case 1:11-cv-00399-EPG Document 114 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 2
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

video recording existed but had not been provided to Plaintiff and Defendant claiming that the 

video recording was the most complete. 

The Court denies Defendant’s motion in limine without prejudice. The Court will hear 

evidence in the normal course at trial, including evidence regarding the foundation, 

authenticity, and completeness of the video recording and make a ruling about the admissibility 

of the recording based on such evidence at trial.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion in limine re video 

recording is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00399-EPG Document 114 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 2