Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00624-30/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

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 

Order on Motions in Limine (1:05-cv-0624 OWW GSA) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

GARRICK HARRINGTON, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:05-cv-0624 OWW-GSA 

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Trial: July 28, 2009 

After considering the briefing and argument of the parties, the Court rules on the motions in 

limine submitted by the parties as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of his prison sentence is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude inmate grievances Log Nos. 04-1858, 04-1925, and 04-

2074 is granted in part. Defendants have withdrawn Log No. 04-1858, thus the motion is moot. 

Defendants may use Log Nos. 04-1925 and 04-2074 to impeach Plaintiff or as a party admission, 

but the documents themselves are not admissible. 

3. Defendants’ motion to preclude Plaintiff from testifying about the diagnosis, prognosis, 

and causation of his injuries is granted. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00624-DAD-MJS Document 144 Filed 08/03/09 Page 1 of 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 

2 

Order on Motions in Limine (1:05-cv-0624 OWW GSA) 

4. Defendants’ motion to preclude Plaintiff from testifying about the biomechanics of his 

fall on May 5, 2004, is granted. 

5. Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of remedial measures is granted in part. 

Plaintiff may introduce evidence of remedial measures to show feasibility, and the Court will 

provide limiting instructions. 

6. Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of other falls after May 5, 2004, is granted. 

7. Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of other lawsuits against Defendants is granted. 

8. Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of indemnification is granted. 

9. Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of offers to compromise is granted. 

Dated: _7/30/2009_________ /s/ OLIVER W WANGER 

Oliver W. Wanger 

United States District Court Judge

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00624-DAD-MJS Document 144 Filed 08/03/09 Page 2 of 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 

3 

Order on Motions in Limine (1:05-cv-0624 OWW GSA) 

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL

Case Name: Garrison Harrington v. A.K. Scribner, et al. 

No.: 1:05-cv- 00624 OWW-GSA 

I declare: 

I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the 

California State Bar, at which member’s direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or 

older and not a party to this matter. 

On July 30, 2009, I served the attached: 

[Proposed] ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

by personally delivering a copy to the party listed below: 

Garrick Harrington (P-28306) 

Courtroom 3 

United States Federal District Court 

Fresno Courthouse 

2500 Tulare, Seventh Floor 

Fresno, California 

In pro per 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of California 

the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 30, 2009, at 

Fresno, California. 

Diana Esquivel /s/ Diana Esquivel

Declarant Signature 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00624-DAD-MJS Document 144 Filed 08/03/09 Page 3 of 3