Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02931/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02931-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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 Joint Stipulation Re: Motions In Limine

ERIC G. YOUNG, ESQ. (SBN 190104)

LAW OFFICE OF ERIC G. YOUNG

100 B Street, Suite 340

Santa Rosa, CA 95401

Telephone: 707.575.5005

Facsimile: 707.575.5395

FRANK J. CHRISTY, JR., ESQ. (SBN 119615)

LAW OFFICE OF FRANK J. CHRISTY, JR.

11 Western Avenue

Petaluma, CA 94952

Telephone: 707.773.2714

Facsimile: 707.762.3538

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

WILLIAM LAMBERT and

BEVERLY LAMBERT

BRIEN J. FARRELL, City Attorney (SBN 088318)

CAROLINE L. FOWLER, Assistant City Attorney (SBN 110313)

City of Santa Rosa

100 Santa Rosa Avenue

P.O. Box 1678

Santa Rosa, CA 95402-1678

Telephone: 707-543-3040

Attorneys for Defendants

MATTHEW SANCHEZ and

CITY OF SANTA ROSA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM LAMBERT, an individual, and ) Case No. C05-02931 CW

BEVERLY LAMBERT, an individual, )

) JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING

Plaintiffs, ) MOTIONS IN LIMINE FOLLOWING

) MEET AND CONFER; ORDER

v. ) THEREON

)

CITY OF SANTA ROSA, a chartered city; )

MATTHEW A SANCHEZ, individually )

and as a Police Officer of the Santa Rosa )

Police Department; et al. )

)

__________________________________ )

Case 4:05-cv-02931-CW Document 116 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 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 Joint Stipulation Re: Motions In Limine

On October 3, 2006, pursuant to the Court’s Order for Pretrial Preparation, counsel for

the parties met and conferred regarding the parties’ respective Motions In Limine. As a result of

that meeting, counsel for the parties jointly stipulated and agreed as follows:

ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1. On Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Any Reference To Former Attorneys

Employed By Plaintiffs Or The Services Performed By Such Attorneys - Defendants agree not to

elicit any such evidence or make any comments or argument at the time of trial except as may be

relevant during questioning about the investigation undertaken by Defendant CITY OF SANTA

ROSA following the incident on March 22, 2004 and the attorney’s participation in that process.

2. On Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Any Reference To The Qualifications,

Expertise Or Specialization Of Any Attorneys Currently Representing Plaintiffs - Defendants

agree not to elicit any such evidence or make any comments or argument at the time of trial.

3. On Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Any Reference To Settlement

Negotiations Undertaken By The Parties - Both parties mutually agree not to elicit any such

evidence or make any comments or argument at the time of trial.

4. On Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Prohibit Requests For Stipulations In Front

Of The Jury - Both parties mutually agree not to elicit any such evidence or make any comments

or argument in front of the jury.

5. On Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Any Reference To Collateral Source

Benefits That Are Or May Become Available To The Plaintiffs - Defendants agree not to elicit

any such evidence or make any comments or argument at the time of trial except as part of any

appropriate post trial motions.

6. On Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Any Reference To Effect Of The

Plaintiffs’ Lawsuit On Public Entity - Defendants agree not to elicit any such evidence or make

any comments or argument at the time of trial.

///

///

Case 4:05-cv-02931-CW Document 116 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 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 Joint Stipulation Re: Motions In Limine

7. On Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Use Of The “Golden Rule” Argument

- Defendants agree not elicit any such evidence or make any comments or argument at the time

of trial.

8. On Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Use Of A Party’s Own Discovery

Responses As Substantive Evidence - Both parties mutually agree not to make use of their own

discovery responses as substantive evidence.

9. On Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Use Copies of Police Combatives In Lieu Of

Original - Defendants object to introduction of this Exhibit as set forth in Defendants’ Motion In

Limine To Exclude Introduction Of Or Reference By Counsel Or Witnesses To The Book Entitled

“Police Combatives” Or Any Portions Thereof. In the event that the court denies defendants’

Motion in Limine or grants it in part, defendants do not object to a copy being used in lieu of the

original of those parts of Police Combatives ,if any, that the court allows to be introduced into

evidence.

10. On Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Any Reference To The Fact That

Plaintiffs Filed Motions In Limine - Both parties mutually agree not to elicit any such evidence

or make any comments or argument at the time of trial that either party filed Motions in Limine.

ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1. On Defendants’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Testimony By Daniel Sullivan As

To Defendant Matthew Sanchez’s State Of Mind - Plaintiffs agree not to elicit testimony from

Mr. Sullivan that Defendant Sanchez’s actions on March 22, 2004 were either “deliberate” or

“malicious.” However, the parties understand and agree that Plaintiffs reserve the right to elicit

such testimony on the issue of punitive damages.

2. On Defendants’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Any Evidence Or Opinions

Regarding The Adequacy Of The Internal Affairs Investigation Conducted By The Santa Rosa

Police Department In This Matter - Plaintiffs agree not to elicit any such evidence or opinions or

comment upon this issue at the time of trial.

///

Case 4:05-cv-02931-CW Document 116 Filed 10/23/06 Page 3 of 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 Joint Stipulation Re: Motions In Limine

3. On Defendants’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Testimony Regarding Any Other

Incidents Or Conduct Of Officer MATTHEW SANCHEZ - Plaintiffs agree not to elicit any such

testimony or evidence or make any comment or argument at the time of trial regarding this issue.

4. On Defendants’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Any Evidence Of Any Other Civil

Rights Actions Filed Against The City, Including But Not Limited To, Cases Regarding The Use

Of Tasers Or Incidents Involving The Use Of Tasers - Plaintiffs agree not to elicit any such

evidence or make any comment or argument regarding this issue at the time of trial.

5. On Defendants’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Wage Loss Claim Of

Beverly Lambert - Plaintiffs agree not to elicit any such evidence or make any comment or

argument regarding this issue at the time of trial.

Dated:______________ _____________/s/____________________

Eric G. Young, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated:______________ ____________/s/_____________________

Caroline L. Fowler, Attorneys for

Defendants

The parties having Stipulated and Good Cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED. Parties

and counsel are instructed to comply with the terms of this Stipulation and Order and, further, to

instruct all witnesses not to violate any of the terms of this Stipulation and Order.

Dated:______________ ___________________________________

The Honorable Claudia Wilken,

U.S. District Court Judge

10/23/06

Case 4:05-cv-02931-CW Document 116 Filed 10/23/06 Page 4 of 4