Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05741/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05741-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ADAMS, et al., CASE NO. CV F 02-5741 LJO DLB

Plaintiffs, CLARIFICATION ON RULINGS ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

vs.

PAUL SPEERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

With their June 9, 2008 letter, plaintiffs request clarification of this Court’s rulings on several

of defendants’ motions in limine. This Court provides the following clarification:

Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 2 To Exclude Evidence Of CHP Findings/Policy

Violations Regarding Defendant’s Conduct: In that this Court has not been provided with allegations,

fact or argument that the police vehicle ramming caused or contributed to the alleged wrongful death,

the ruling on the motion applies to the entire case. 

Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 3 To Exclude Captain Mick Rotondo’s

Recommendation: The ruling’s preclusive effect includes the protocols referred to in Defendant’s

Motion in Limine No. 2 but does not preclude protocols concerning the actual shooting or officer

positioning at the time of the shooting. Clearly, Captain Rotondo’s recommendation is precluded.

Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 5 To Exclude Evidence Of CHP Pursuit Policies: The

facts concerning what occurred during the pursuit have never been precluded and are not precluded.

Case 1:02-cv-05741-LJO-DLB Document 195 Filed 06/10/08 Page 1 of 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

2

Alleged violations of collateral policies having nothing to do with the shooting itself are precluded. The

issue whether Officer Speers was authorized to participate in the pursuit is precluded as irrelevant and,

even if the issue was relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by F.R.Evid. 403

considerations of prejudice, confusion and waste of time.

Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 9 To Exclude 14 Amendment Violation: This Court th

realizes that based on disputed evidence, it denied Officer Speers summary judgment on plaintiffs’

(third) 14 Amendment deprivation of liberty cause of action. At this stage without presentation of th

evidence at trial, this Court is not in a position to dismiss or remove the 14 Amendment claim. The th

Court’s motion in limine ruling addressed plaintiffs’ (second) Fourth Amendment cause of action which

appears as the thrust of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. The strategic decision to pursue a Fourteenth

Amendment claim remains with plaintiffs, however, the Court will entertain a F.R.Civ.P. 50(a) motion

on the claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05741-LJO-DLB Document 195 Filed 06/10/08 Page 2 of 2