Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01660/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01660-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 05CV1660 J (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURIZIO ANTONINETTI

Plaintiff,

v.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,

AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05CV1660-J (WMc)

Related to & Consolidated for Discovery

with 06cv2671 (WMc)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXHIBITS

AND TESTIMONY RELATING TO

DEFENDANT’S POLICY

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXHIBITS

NO. 51 AND 92 (DEFENDANT’S

TRIAL MANUAL) AND ANY

TESTIMONY RELATING THE TO

TRIAL MANUAL

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE

CUMULATIVE WITNESSES

(4) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE JOE

STUPP’S TESTIMONY

REGARDING 3/15/07 EMAIL

(5) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT

WITNESS TESTIMONY

REGARDING APPLICABLE LAW

AND REGULATIONS

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 12
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 05CV1660 J (WMc)

(6)DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE

EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

REGARDING CHIPOTLE

RESTAURANTS NOT AT ISSUE IN

THE COMPLAINT

(7) DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

AND ARGUMENT REGARDING

NON-WITNESS ALLEGATIONS OF

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

(8) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE MICHAEL

RIFKIN, JAMES PERKINS, AND

JEAN RIKER

(9) DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE AND

ARGUMENT REGARDING

ALLEGATIONS THAT

DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS

KIM BLACKSETH HAD

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR

MISUSED HIS POSITION

(10) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

OF PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS

ARTICLES BATES LABELED DEF

RFP 24-0250 THROUGH DEF RFP

24-0281

A Motion in Limine hearing was held for this action on Monday, November 5, 2007, at

9:00 a.m. Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and damages under California Civil Code Sections 51, 51.5,

52, 54, 54.1 and 54.3. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The Court granted in

part and denied in part both parties’ motions. Trial is scheduled to begin on November 27, 2007

at 8:00 a.m. Currently before the Court are five (5) Motions in Limine filed by Plaintiff and five

(5) Motions in Limine filed by Defendant. [Doc. Nos. 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170,

171, 172.] Both parties have filed Responses in Opposition to the Motions. [ Doc. Nos. 179,

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 12
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 05CV1660 J (WMc)

180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190.] Plaintiff filed his Reply to the Defendant’s

Responses. [Doc. Nos. 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197.]

Background

Plaintiff is a paraplegic who requires a wheelchair for mobility. (Prop. Pretrial Order at

1.) Defendant owns and operates restaurants in Encinitas and San Diego. (Id.) Defendant’s

restaurants serve burritos, tacos, and other Mexican cuisine. (Id. at 3.) In ordering their entrees,

customers move along a service line and select various ingredients. (Id.) Defendant’s employees then prepare the entrees in front of customers using the selected ingredients. (Id.) After

customers order their entrees and the employees prepare them, they move down the service line

to a cashier counter to pay for their entrees. (Id. at 3.) The cashier counter is compliant with

disabilities regulations. (Id. at 7.)

Defendant’s employees prepare the entrees on counters that are approximately 35 inches

high. (Id. at 5.) A wall separates restaurant customers from the food-preparation counters. (Id.

at 4-5.) The wall is 44 inches from the floor. (Id.) A sneeze guard is attached to the top of the

wall by a metal bracket that is approximately 2 inches high. (Id. at 5.) The view of the foodpreparation counters is obstructed to a height of 46 inches from the floor. (Id.) If a person’s

eyes are at a height of 51 inches and are 12 inches from the wall at the food service line, the

person can see no portion of the food-preparation counter, the ingredients available for selection,

or the preparation of their food. (Id.) If a person’s eyes are at a height of 43 inches and are 12

inches from the wall at the food service line, the person can see no portion of the food-preparation counter, the ingredients available for selection, or the preparation of their food. (Id.) The

average eye level of persons in wheelchairs is between 43 and 51 inches. (Id.) Plaintiff’s eye

level is 45 inches. (Id. at 8.) He could not see over the wall obstructing the food-preparation

counter. (Id.) 

On October 6, 2006, the parties conducted site inspections of Defendants restaurants as

part of discovery. (Id. at 5.) Defendant’s employees did not show Plaintiff food items unless he

asked to see them. (Id.) Plaintiff was shown each item he asked to see. (Id.) Defendant’s

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 12
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 05CV1660 J (WMc)

employees showed Plaintiff the items individually by tongfuls, handfuls, and in plastic cups. (Id.

at 8.) 

On February 23, 2007, Defendant implemented a nationwide “Customers with Disabilities” policy (“Policy”). (Id. at 12.) The Policy provides that “[a] customer with a disability (for

example, a visual or mobility impairment) may benefit from some alternative means of presenting or describing our food.” (Id.) The policy sets forth several examples of the ways in which

Defendant’s employees can accommodate individuals with disabilities, such as showing

customers samples of foods in cups, giving customers an opportunity to see or sample the food at

a table, or describing the food or food-preparation process to customers. (Id.) Plaintiff argues

that this Policy does not constitute “equivalent facilitation” as provided by the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”). 

Discussion

I. Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

A. Motion in Limine #1

Plaintiff has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude exhibits and any testimony relating to

Defendant’s Policy on the grounds that, as a matter of law, the Policy cannot constitute

“equivalent facilitation” under the ADAAG. [Doc. No. 168.] Defendant has filed an opposition

asserting that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine consists solely of substantive legal arguments

regarding the central issue that remains to be decided at trial–whether the Policy is “equivalent

facilitation” under Section 7.2(2)(iii) of the ADAAG. [Doc. No. 179 at 2.] Defendant also

argues that the arguments that Plaintiff raises in his motion have already been expressly rejected

by the court on three occasions and that Plaintiff raises these issues for the sole purpose of

harassing Defendant and unnecessarily increasing the costs of the litigation. (Id.) Defendant

requests that the Court award Defendant the costs and fees incurred in opposing this motion. 

(Id.) 

The Court has previously denied Plaintiff’s motion to find this issue in his favor at the

motion for summary judgment phase and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. , the pretrial

order phase and at the pretrial conference. [See Doc. Nos. 129, 147.] The Court has held that

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 4 of 12
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

5 05CV1660 J (WMc)

the question of whether Chipotle’s Policy provides “equivalent facilitation” under the ADAAG

is the ultimate question and best reserved for trial. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

Motion in Limine to exclude exhibits and any testimony relating to Defendant’s policy. 

Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a response to Defendant’s request for sanctions asserting that she

has filed this motion to preserve the record for appeal. [Doc. No. 191 at 2.] As such, the Court

DENIES Defendant’s request for the costs and fees associated with opposing this motion. 

B. Motion in Limine #2

Plaintiff has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude exhibits No. 51 and 92 (Defendant’s

Training Manual) and any testimony relating to said manual on the grounds that such evidence

constitutes inadmissible legal conclusions regarding the requirements set forth by the ADA

because they are proffered by lay witnesses. [Doc. No. 169.] Defendant argues in opposition

that these exhibits will not be offered as proof of the legal requirements of the ADA but rather as

evidence of the steps that Defendant has taken to inform its employees of their obligations under

the ADA. [Doc. No. 180 at 2.] Defendant’s instructions to its employees are particularly

important to the central issue at trial; whether Defendant’s Policy is an effective method of

accommodating customers with disabilities within the meaning of Sections 2.2 and 7.2(2)(iii) of

the ADAAG. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to exclude exhibits

No. 51 and 92 (Defendant’s Training Manual) and any testimony relating to said manual.

C. Motion in Limine #3

Plaintiff has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude cumulative witnesses. [Doc. No. 170.] 

Plaintiff refers to Defendant’s witness list naming “Area Managers,” “Operations Directors,”

“Service Managers,” and “Apprentices” as potential witnesses as evidence that Defendant may

introduce witnesses whose testimony will all relate to the same issues. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff

requests that the Court limit Defendant to one witness per issue and strike the following defense

witnesses: Phil Petrilli, Matt Scheiman, Tim Spong, Ben Williams, Martiza Arriaga, Jose Rivera,

Santiago Gonzales, Erika Ramires, Kevin Kupper, Morgan Anderson, Maria Perez, Rene

Saucedo, Claudio Lopez. (Id.) Defendant responds that Plaintiff’s objections to these witnesses

are premature because Defendant has not yet determined what evidence it will introduce through

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 5 of 12
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

6 05CV1660 J (WMc)

each of its specific witnesses. (Def.’s Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. In Limine #3 at 2.) Defendant also

points out that more than one witness may be needed for a particular issue because one witness

may not have the requisite personal knowledge for all of the evidence Defendant may seek to

introduce about a particular issue. (Id.) For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion

in Limine to exclude cumulative witnesses. The Court does permit both parties to object to the

use of cumulative witnesses at trial if the need arises.

D. Motion in Limine #4

Plaintiff has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude Joe Stupp’s testimony regarding the

3/15/07 email on the grounds that the email is inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rules of

Evidence 801 and 802. [Doc. No. 171.] Defendant has filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion

asserting that Defendant previously agreed to refrain from calling Mr. Stupp as a witness during

a telephonic conference held on Friday, September 28, 2007. Defendant concludes that, as per

this previous agreement, Plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary. [Doc. No. 182 at 1.] Since the

parties have previously agreed to this matter, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine

to exclude Joe Stupp’s testimony regarding the 3/15/07 email. 

E. Motion in Limine #5

Plaintiff has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude expert witness testimony regarding

applicable laws and regulations on the grounds that such testimony does not fall within the scope

of expert testimony admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. [Doc. No. 172.] Plaintiff

further notes that the parties have already agreed that they will not offer such expert witness

testimony. (Id. at 2.) Defendant has filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion stating that, as

Plaintiff asserts in his motion, the parties have agreed to exclude such expert witness testimony

and that Plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary. Since the parties have previously agreed to this

matter, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to exclude expert witness testimony

regarding applicable laws and regulations. 

I. Defendant’s Motions in Limine

A. Motion in Limine #1

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 6 of 12
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

7 05CV1660 J (WMc)

Defendant has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude evidence and argument regarding

Chipotle restaurants not at issue in the Complaint on the grounds that such evidence is irrelevant

and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 401, 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. [Doc.

No. 163.] Defendant argues that the Complaint only identifies the Chipotle Restaurants at

Pacific Beach and Encinitas as the establishments where he was subjected to discrimination or

other alleged violations of his rights under state and federal law. (Id. at 1.) Defendant asserts

that evidence regarding other Chipotle restaurants is not relevant to the issue in this case and

“poses a substantial danger of unfair prejudice to Chipotle and confusion of the issues.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff counters that the paramount issue in the case is whether Chipotle’s policy constitutes

equivalent facilitation as provided by ADAAG sec. 2.2 and ADAAG Sec. 7.2(2)(iii). [Doc. No.

186 at 2.] Plaintiff contends that the Court must consider what the “Chipotle experience” is like

that of other restaurants in order to determine if the Policy is “equivalent facilitation.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant does not differentiate between the Chipotle experience at various

restaurants and considers the Chipotle Policy to be a “national policy” affecting all of its

restaurants. (Id.) In other words, as a national corporation, the “Chipotle experience” is not

unique to individual restaurants. (Id. at 3.) 

Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that “all relevant evidence is

admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of

Congress, by these rules...[e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” Rule 402 Fed. R.

Ev. Relevant evidence is defined as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of

any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable

than it would be without the evidence.” Rule 401 Fed. R. Ev. Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence allow a district court the discretion to exclude relevant evidence “if its probative value

is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, . . ., or by

considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” 

Rule 403 Fe. R. Ev. 

As Plaintiff argues, evidence regarding the “Chipotle experience” is relevant to the issue

of whether Chipotle’s Policy is “equivalent facilitation” under ADAAG. Because Defendant

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 7 of 12
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

8 05CV1660 J (WMc)

does not exclude its Encinitas and Pacific Beach restaurants from its national Policy or its

national “Chipotle experience,” news clippings and media regarding the Chipotle experience are

relevant in this action even if they were not released in reference to the two Chipotle restaurants

listed in the Complaint. There is no evidence to suggest that the restaurants identified in the

Complaint were not governed by the national corporation’s expectation of providing customers

with the same “Chipotle experience” it governed for its other restaurants. Additionally, Defendant’s claim that evidence of the Chipotle experience at other restaurants will confuse the issue

and require Defendant to defend the service offered at its other restaurants is without merit. 

Defendant will only have to present evidence about the Encinitas and Pacific Beach restaurants

compliance with the Policy and the national “Chipotle experience” objective. For the above

reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion in Limine to exclude evidence and argument

regarding Chipotle restaurants not at issue in the Complaint. 

B. Motion in Limine #2

Defendant has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude evidence and argument regarding nonwitness allegations of disability discrimination on the grounds that such evidence, whether oral

or written is inadmissible hearsay. [Doc. No. 164.] Defendant claims that Plaintiff may

introduce non-witness complaints such as those contained in Exhibits 1, 4, 6, 56 and 82 of the

Proposed Trail Exhibits. (Id. at 2.) These complaints are from other wheelchair users and

concern the accessibility of Chipotle’s restaurants. (Id. at 3.) Defendant further argues that none

of the alleged customers who made these complaints were identified as witnesses to be called at

trial and, as such, evidence of their complaints is inadmissible hearsay under Rules 801 and 802

of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Id.) Defendant also refers to its Motion in Limine to exclude

evidence and argument regarding Chipotle restaurants not at issue in the complaints as a basis

for excluding any complaints regarding Chipotle restaurants other than Pacific Beach and

Encinitas restaurants. (Id.) Plaintiff argues in opposition that the complaints that Defendant

moves to exclude have already been removed from Proposed Exhibit 6 per agreement of the

parties. [Doc. No. 187 at 2.] Plaintiff agrees to remove those documents from Proposed Trial

Exhibits 1 and 82 because they are duplicative. (Id.) Plaintiff also agrees to remove Proposed

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 8 of 12
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

9 05CV1660 J (WMc)

Trial Exhibit 56 from the Amended Exhibit List. (Id.) This limits Defendant’s Motion in

Limine to a request to exclude Proposed Trial Exhibit 4. Plaintiff further argues that the

complaints are not hearsay because they are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but

rather as evidence of Chipotle’s failure to mention the Policy in response to email complaints. 

(Id.) An out of court statement is not hearsay if it is offered to show the effect on the hearer,

reader or viewer rather than to prove the content of the statement, e.g., to show that a party had

notice or knowledge; that a party was given a warning or to prove a party’s motive, good faith,

fear, etc. where such matters are relevant to the case. (See Rutter Group Practice Guide, Federal

Civil Trial and Evidence, [8:1865, et seq.])

Plaintiff argues that the complaints go to Defendant’s credibility regarding the existence

of the Policy. (Id.) Particularly, Defendant’s intent and motive with respect to the existence,

implementation, effectiveness and enforcement of the Policy. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also argues

that these complaints are evidence of Defendant’s ineffective conduct in response to earlier

complaints and the likelihood that the Policy will be effectively enforced in the future. (Id. at 3.) 

Although Plaintiff would be able to overcome the hearsay bar by offering these complaints as evidence of something other than the truth of the matter asserted, these complaints

would remain irrelevant to the issue at hand. There is no evidence that any of these complaints

were received by the Encinitas and Pacific Beach restaurants. As stated above, Rule 402

provides that “all relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules...[e]vidence which is not relevant is

not admissible.” Rule 402 Fed. R. Ev. Here, Plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that a

Chipotle restaurant not identified in the Complaint failed to adequately accommodate its

disabled customers as evidence that the restaurants listed in the Complaint is likely to do the

same. This evidence is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. The response by one Chipotle

restaurant to complaints about the restaurant’s accessibility could differ drastically from the

response another Chipotle restaurant would have to the same complaint. For these reasons, the

Court GRANTS defendant’s Motion in Limine to exclude evidence and argument regarding

non-witness allegations of disability discrimination. 

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 9 of 12
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

10 05CV1660 J (WMc)

C. Motions in Limine #3

Defendant has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude Michael Rifkin, James Perkins, and

Jean Riker , co-plaintiffs in a related class action against Chipotle pending in this court, as trial

witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules

401, 402, 403 and 602 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. [Doc. No. 166.] Defendant argues that

the aforementioned Plaintiffs were never identified as potential witnesses in the present action in

Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a) disclosures or any other supplements. (Id. at 2.) Defendant argues that the

failure to disclose these potential witnesses during discovery prevented Defendant from

conducting any discovery regarding their potential testimony and allowing the testimony would

result in substantial prejudice to defendant. (Id.) Defendant further argues that Plaintiff’s

witnesses have no firsthand knowledge of either of the restaurants at issue in the case and that

the testimony must be excluded under Rules 401, 402, 403 and 602 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence. (Id.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides that “a party that without substantial

justification fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a) . . . or to amend a prior response

to discovery as required by Rule 26(e)(2), is not, unless failure is harmless, permitted to use as

evidence at trial . . . any witness or information not so disclosed” (emphasis added). Rule

37(c)(1) Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 37(c)(1) was designed to be self-executing in order to produce a

strong incentive for disclosure. Rule 37 Fed. R. Civ. P., Advisory Comm. Note (1993). 

In his response, Plaintiff argues that Defendant was aware of these witnesses because they

were disclosed in the related class action. [Doc. No. 188 at 2.] Further, the Court consolidated

the instant case with the related class action case for discovery purposes on March 20, 2007. 

(Id.) Because the issues were similar and these cases were consolidated for discovery purposes

there is no significant threat of prejudice to Defendant by allowing these witnesses to testify. 

Further, in his response, Plaintiff suggests that he intends to use these witnesses to impeach

Defendant’s credibility regarding the implementation and effectiveness of its Policy. [Doc. No.

188 at 3.] Impeachment witnesses need not be disclosed in pretrial disclosures or, in responses

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 10 of 12
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

11 05CV1660 J (WMc)

to other discovery. See FRCP 26(a)(1)(A), 26(a)(3). Thus, these witnesses would be admissible

even if the failure to list them in Rule 26(a) disclosures was prejudicial. 

Defendant’s argument that the testimony of these witnesses is irrelevant because they lack

personal knowledge of the restaurants identified in the Complaint has merit. As stated above,

the response of a Chipotle restaurant not listed in the Complaint to allegations of non-compliance with ADAAG is not necessarily the same response that the Chipotle restaurants listed in the

Complaint would have to the same allegations. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s

motion to exclude Michael Rifkin, James Perkins, and Jean Riker on the grounds that their

testimony is irrelevant and they have no personal knowledge of the restaurants identified in the

Complaint. If the testimony of these witnesses can be limited to the experience at the Chipotle

restaurants listed in the Complaint or Plaintiff can show that the restaurants listed in the

Complaint were made aware of the allegations of non-compliance addressed to other Chipotle

restaurants by these witnesses then the Court FINDS that Defendant had notice to obtain

depositions of these witnesses and their testimony would not be unfairly harmful to Defendant. 

D. Motion in Limine #4

Defendant has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude any evidence and argument regarding

allegations that Defendant’s expert witness Kim Blackseth had conflicts of interest or misused

his position with the California Building Standards Commission during his service with that

agency. [Doc. No. 165.] Defendant argues that any evidence or argument regarding these

allegations against Mr. Blackseth must be excluded under Rule 403 on the grounds that its

probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger it poses of unfair prejudice, confusion

of the issues, and concerns of delay and waste of time. (Id. at 2.) Defendant further argues that

any extrinsic evidence is inadmissible under Rule 608 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Id. at

3.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion asserting that Mr. Blackseth’s reputation

in the disabled community as a person whose opinions are biased and not credible are admissible

pursuant FRE 608(a) and FRE 803(21). Plaintiff is permitted to introduce evidence of bias or

improper motivation on the part of an expert witness. Rule 608 does, however, expressly state

that specific instances of a witness’ conduct that are offered for the purpose of attacking or

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 11 of 12
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

12 05CV1660 J (WMc)

supporting the witness’ credibility may not be proven by extrinsic evidence. Rule 608 Fed. R.

Ev. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion in Limine to exclude any evidence

and argument regarding allegations that Defendant’s expert witness Kim Blackseth had conflicts

of interest or misused his position with regards to the reputation evidence and GRANTS the

motion with regards to specific instances of the alleged misconduct. 

E. Motion in Limine #5

Defendant has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude evidence of press releases and news

articles bates labeled DEF RFP 24-0250 through DEF RFP 24-0281 in proposed trial exhibit 16. 

Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-opposition to this Motion in Limine. Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS Defendant’s Motion in Limine to exclude evidence of press releases and news articles

bates labeled DEF RFP 24-0250 through DEF 24-0821 in proposed trial exhibit 16. 

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the

parties’ Motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 7, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 202 Filed 11/08/07 Page 12 of 12