Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00689-41/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

Before the Court are the motions in limine filed by Plaintiff Jean-Pierre K. Thomas

(“Plaintiff”) on January 2, 2013 (Doc. 135) and by Defendants Garcia and Bonilla on June 28, 2013.

(Docs 186, 187, 188). Defendants submitted their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion in limine on July 3, 

2013. (Doc. 191). Plaintiff untimely filed his opposition to Defendants’ motion in limine on July 15, 

2013. (Docs. 199-201).1 

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion in limine (Doc. 135) and Defendants’ 

 

1 Despite the deadlines set forth in the pretrial order, (Doc. 170), Plaintiff reports that thought “his due date to turn 

his opposition...was July 12th.” (Doc. 202 at 1). He requests that the Court grant him an extension of time to file the 

oppositions. In the interests of justice and finding no prejudice to the Defendants, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion 

for extension of time, (Doc. 202), and addresses his responses herein.

JEAN-PIERRE K. THOMAS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. P. GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-00689 – JLT (PC)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE

(Doc. 135)

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE

(Doc. 186, 187, 188)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE HIS 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN 

LIMINE

(Doc. 202)

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 1 of 19
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

motion in limine to limit Plaintiff’s medical expert (Doc. 188) are DENIED as moot. Defendants’ 

motion in limine to exclude certain trial exhibits (Doc. 186) is GRANTED IN PART and Defendants’ 

motion in limine to limit Plaintiff’s trial testimony (Doc. 187) is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND

The events at issue in this action occurred at Kern Valley State Prison on October 5, 2006. 

(Doc. 129 at 2-4). On that date, Plaintiff alleges that after complying with prison personnel’s orders to 

“get down,” he admittedly crawled a short distance and lifted his head to watch what was happening. 

Id. Defendant Garcia then ordered him and several others to cross their legs, apparently to impose an 

impediment to further movement. Id. Plaintiff was told to “shut-up” and responded by telling Garcia 

to “shut-up.” Id. at 2-4.

Plaintiff subsequently refused to comply with orders to allow him to be cuffed but contends 

once he was handcuffed, Defendants Garcia and Bonilla picked him up and twice slammed him headfirst into the ground. (Doc. 129 at 2-5). Plaintiff complains Defendants applied the handcuffs too

tightly and that he suffered injuries as a result. Id. at 5-6.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the 

practice has developed pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority to manage the course of 

trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984). The Ninth Circuit explained motions in 

limine “allow parties to resolve evidentiary disputes ahead of trial, without first having to present 

potentially prejudicial evidence in front of a jury.” Brodit v. Cabra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 

2003) (citations omitted). Likewise, the Seventh Circuit found motions in limine are “an important 

tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded management of the trial 

proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). 

Generally, motions in limine that seek exclusion of broad and unspecific categories of evidence 

are disfavored. See Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). A 

court “is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of 

evidence.” Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1218 (D. Kan. 2007). Therefore, the Sixth 

Circuit explained, “[A] better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence as they 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 2 of 19
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

arise [in trial]” as opposed to ruling on a motion in limine. Sperberg, 519 F.2d at 712.

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE

Plaintiff seeks to preclude Defendants from introducing evidence of his criminal conviction

and prison disciplinary proceedings. (Doc. 135 at 1). Whether evidence of a conviction will be 

admitted is governed by Federal Rules of Evidence 609. Evidence must be admitted, pursuant to Fed. 

R. Evid. 403, in civil cases in which the witness is not the defendant and where the conviction was

punishable by more than one year in prison. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)(A). 

Generally, a conviction will not be admitted if more than 10 years have passed since the time 

the witness was released from confinement on the charge. However, the 10-year presumptive bar does 

not apply if the witness remains in custody for the charge at issue. Nevertheless, in either situation, a

conviction may not be admitted if its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Fed. R. 

Evid. 609(b).

Here, Plaintiff provides very little argument concerning his request for exclusion of his 

criminal conviction and disciplinary proceedings at trial. See (Doc. 135). Plaintiff argues that this 

information “falls outside of the scope of the Federal Rule of Evidence 609.” Id. at 1. He further 

indicates that reference to his criminal history is irrelevant and could cause prejudice at trial. Id. at 2.

On the other hand, Defendants argue that they should not be precluded from eliciting testimony 

from Plaintiff because “Plaintiff’s convictions are highly probative of his credibility.” (Doc. 191 at 2). 

They further indicate that the 10-year limitation in Rule 609(b) is in applicable as he is serving a life 

sentence with regard to the conviction that Defendants seek to introduce. Id. at 2. Finally, Defendants 

report they do not seek to introduce specific facts concerning Plaintiff’s disciplinary history to show 

that he acted in conformity with his prior conduct, but limit its introduction to rebuttal evidence or on 

cross-examination. Id. at 3. 

Given that the credibility of all the parties and witnesses is a significant issue in the case, the 

Court does not find the prejudicial effect posed outweigh the probative value. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion 

(Doc. 135) is DENIED. However, Defendants may introduce the fact of the conviction and the 

sentence. No details about the offense, including the name of the offense will be introduced. The 

Court finds that the probative value of this information is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 3 of 19
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

Evidence related to the discipline imposed upon Plaintiff as a result of the events at issue will 

not be introduced absent a showing, outside the presence of the jury, that the evidence is admissible

consistent with the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

IV. DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

A. Motion in Limine #1 – Preclusion of Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits (Doc. 186)

Defendants move to exclude the majority of Plaintiff’s exhibits at trial on the grounds of 

relevance, hearsay, and confusion to the jury. (Doc. 186 at 1). Each motion in limine is addressed 

below: 

1. Medical records

As a preliminary matter, evidence is relevant where is it “has any tendency to make a fact more 

or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and [] the fact is of consequence in determining 

the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401(a) and (b). However, relevant evidence may be excluded where the 

Court determines that the probative value of the evidence is “substantially outweighed by a danger of 

one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, 

wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

Nonetheless, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s medical records constitute hearsay. Hearsay is 

defined as an out of court statement offered to “prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 

801(c). Such statements are inadmissible unless a statement falls within a recognized exception to the 

hearsay rule. See e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 803. Statements made within medical records for the purposes of 

medical diagnosis have been recognized as an exception to the hearsay rule on several grounds. See 

Fed. R. Civ. 803; United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (Statements of a victim to 

her medical provider that boyfriend caused injuries were made for purpose of medical treatment and 

thus admissible). 

Notably, Plaintiff has not disclosed any medical expert to testify as to the causation of his eye 

condition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) who could testify as to the causation of his eye condition, 

as is required. See e.g., Hermann, 2012 at *3. 

2. Discovery Documents

Defendants object to Plaintiff’s use of their responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production and 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 4 of 19
5

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

interrogatory requests as contained in Exhibits 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 15. (Doc. 186). Defendants 

primarily complain that these documents are incomplete and contain Plaintiff’s handwriting. This 

argument fails given that Plaintiff may establish the authenticity of these documents on direct or crossexamination. By filing only the portion of the discovery documents he believes relevant, Plaintiff has 

not unduly burdened the Court with unnecessary filings. 

Defendants raise no substantive arguments in their objection to the use of their discovery 

responses. Rather, they contend that their responses would be improper impeachment tools because 

“the document was not verified by the Defendant[s].” (Doc 186 at 5). However, this argument ignores 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, which requires that every pleading must be signed by at least one attorney of 

record. By signing each document, the attorney “certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, 

information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” that the legal and 

factual contentions contained in the pleading are true. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) and (b). 

By submitting Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s request for production to Plaintiff, the Court 

presumes that Defense counsel verified their clients’ answers with them prior to signing the document. 

Thus, it logically follows that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production were indeed 

verified. Any other conclusion would subject Defense counsel to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 violation. 

On the other hand, no discovery response will be shown to the jury unless and until all 

objections stated in the responses have been ruled upon. Then, if all objections are overruled, only the 

portion of the substantive response—but not the stated objections—will be shown to the jury.

3. Inmate Grievance Documents

Defendants request the exclusion of Plaintiff’s CDCR Form 22, Inmate Requests for an 

Interview, and Inmate Appeal Log Number KVSP-06-03380 documents. Defendants argue that these 

documents are not relevant to the issue of whether Defendants used excessive force against Plaintiff 

on October 5, 2006. Defendants argue further that the inmate grievances are “remote from the events 

at issue.” Id.

Defendants correctly indicate that the only issue to be decided by the jury is whether 

Defendants used excessive force on Plaintiff on October 5, 2006. Plaintiff’s inmate grievances solely 

demonstrate that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative as required by the Prison Litigation Reform 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 5 of 19
6

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

Act, which is no longer at issue. Furthermore, his CDCR Form 22, Inmate Request for Interviews, 

merely show his efforts to resolve certain issues arising after the October 5, 2006 incident, which is 

not relevant. 

4. Third-Party Declarations and Letters

Defendants move to exclude Plaintiff’s and Dr. Thomas’ letters to or from third parties and the 

declarations of Inmates Glover and Key. Defendants argue that these statements contain hearsay. Id. 

A review of the documents indicates that all of these documents contain out-of-court 

statements. Plaintiff argues that the investigative employee’s report, as contained in Exhibit 7, has 

been presented to show that Officer Rivera noticed Plaintiff’s cuff marks a month after the October 5, 

2006, incident. (Doc. 199 at 23). Similarly, with regard to Dr. Thomas’ letter to Warden Knowles, 

Plaintiff avers that this letter demonstrates that Plaintiff sustained head trauma. (Doc. 199 at 27). 

These letters, and others, are a textbook example of a document presented to prove the truth of the 

matter asserted. As such, the documents are hearsay. The Court finds no applicable exceptions to the 

hearsay rule.

Thus, the documents may not be admitted but the people making these statements may testify, 

not as to the content of the letters, but what they perceived to have occurred.

5. Discovery Correspondence 

Defendants object to the use of correspondence concerning discovery matters. They argue that 

the discovery correspondence between the parties or between Plaintiff and a third-party is irrelevant. It 

is apparent that this correspondence merely demonstrates the logistical maneuvering the parties 

undertook in preparation for trial. Such documents are irrelevant and beyond the purview of the trier 

of fact. Thus, these documents will not be admitted. 

6. Use of Pleadings/Orders

Defendants object at length to the use of official court pleadings and docket sheets as contained 

in Plaintiff’s Exhibits Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude official court. 

First, pleadings, while part of the official record in this case, do not bear on the issues for the 

jury to decide. For example, Plaintiff argues that the service order contained in Exhibit 8 should be 

admitted to show that Defendant Garcia eluded service for over two years. Id. at 24. Whether this is 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 6 of 19
7

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

true, this does not assist the jury in concluding whether Garcia subjected Plaintiff to excessive force. 

Thus, the pleadings are not evidence and according to Fed. R. Evid. 403, they must be excluded. 

Second, Defendants seek to preclude the use of Plaintiff’s prior declarations made to the Court. 

(Doc. 186 at 6, 12). Defendants aver that Plaintiff must testify in open Court in order to prove his case 

and that his sworn statement should only be used for purposes of impeachment. Indeed, use of such a 

statement would not permit the jury to judge Plaintiff’s credibility and weigh the inferences of his 

testimony, which is the primary function of the jury. See e.g., Cockrum v. Whitney, 479 F.2d 84, 86 

(9th Cir. 1973).

Third, Defendants contend that the docket sheet from a habeas corpus matter in Fifth Appellate 

District of the California Court of Appeals, Case Number F055510, is not relevant to the present 

matter. (Doc. 186 at 6). However, once again, this document does not bear on the issues left to be 

decided by the jury. 

Fourth, Plaintiff presents the docket sheet from Aubert v. Elijah, Case No. 1:07-cv-01629, a 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 in which Defendant Garcia was previously sued. (Doc. 151 at 148-155). Plaintiff 

argues that the jury should see evidence that Defendant Garcia was previously sued over the excessive 

use of force, because the jury could infer “bad motive, [and/or] intent...to abuse prisoners.” (Doc. 199 

at 34). Such character evidence serves nothing more than to imply that Defendant Garcia acted in a 

similar manner on October 5, 2006, and is improper under Fed. R. Evid. 404(a). Thus, these 

documents will not be admitted to prove Garcia used excessive force on October 5, 2006.2 

8. Legal Treatises

Defendants object to the § 1983 legal treatise concerning the excessive use of force contained 

in Exhibit 18. (Doc. 186 at 12; Doc. 151 at 170-174). However, Plaintiff seemingly attached this legal 

treatise to his pretrial statement as the “[j]ury [i]nstructions he’ll put in Exhibit R [to] be used in his 

[j]ury [t]rial.” (Doc. 151 at 28). Thus, it does not appear Plaintiff intends to admit these documents. 

 

2The Court may “judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute,” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), such as 

the existence of state court records or of filings in another case. See e.g, Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 916 n. 3 (9th Cir. 

2003); Copple v. Astrella & Rice, P.C., 442 F. Supp. 2d 829, 835 (N.D. Cal. 2006) aff'd sub nom. Copple v. Astrella & 

Rice, PC, 281 F. App'x 675 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff may request that the Court take judicial of certain court proceedings 

at trial, provided that he provide the proper notice set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 201.

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 7 of 19
8

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

In any event, legal treatises, statutes, regulations and the like are not admissible.

i. Exhibit 13

Defendants request preclusion of Plaintiff’s medical records into evidence, as contained in 

Exhibit 1. Defendants assert that these documents should be precluded as they contain hearsay and 

that Plaintiff will be unable to lay a foundation for their admission into evidence given the absence of 

a medical expert. 

 Plaintiff seeks recompense for the injuries arising from the October 5, 2006. The medical 

records contained in Exhibit 1 pertain to his injuries which he claims arose from the October 5, 2006, 

incident.4(Doc. 151 at 29-31). As such, Plaintiff’s medical records have the tendency to make the

existence of his injuries arising from the October 5, 2006, incident more probable. Thus, his medical 

records are relevant. However, clearly, they contain inadmissible hearsay statements. As to the first 

page of Exhibit 1, the document contains the signature of “M. Hankins LVN,” who was Plaintiff’s 

treating nurse on October 5, 2013. (Doc. 151 at 30). Plaintiff and Defendants also disclosed M. 

Hankins as a witness.5To the extent that M. Hankins testifies to Plaintiff’s diagnosis and treatment, 

Exhibit 1 may be utilized in that testimony. In addition, the document contains statements made by 

Plaintiff to a medical provider regarding to the cause of his injuries. Likewise, depending upon how 

the trial proceeds, this statement may be admitted as a prior consistent statement but only if

Defendants admit evidence that Plaintiff made an inconsistent statement as to the cause of his injury.

Finally, In addition, before the documents may be admitted, there must be an adequate foundation is 

laid.

Likewise, the second page of Exhibit 1 contains notes of a visit to the clinic in which Plaintiff 

 

3

In his pretrial statement (Doc. 151), Plaintiff designates his exhibits by an alphabetical symbol. However, in 

compliance with the Court’s pretrial order (Doc. 170), Defendants have designated each exhibit by its corresponding 

number, for example, Plaintiff’s Exhibit A corresponds with Exhibit 1. Hereinafter in this matter, Plaintiff’s Exhibits 

SHALL be referred to by their numerical rather than their alphabetical designation. 

4

Plaintiff seems to take the position that the Court admitted all of the medical records at the pretrial conference. 

To the contrary, the parties agreed that the records were authentic without need for an authenticating witness. No other 

objections to the records were offered or considered at that time. Thus, the admissibility of the documents depends upon 

whether an adequate foundational showing is made and whether other objections exist.

5

In making this finding, the Court presumes that M. Hankins’ testimony will be limited to M. Hankins’ 

“observations, diagnosis and treatment of a patient, about what he saw and did and why he did it.” Hermann v. Hartford 

Cas. Ins. Co., No. 11-CV-03188-REB-MEH, 2012 WL 5569769, at *3 (D. Colo. Nov. 15, 2012). As such, no Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(a)(2)(B) report is not necessary. Hermann, 2012 WL, at *3. However, Defendants may renew their objection to the 

use of Exhibit 1 at trial should the proper grounds present themselves. 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 8 of 19
9

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

was demanding prescription ointment for an abrasion. The nurse—whose name is illegible—

consulted with the doctor and then told Plaintiff the ointment was unneeded and an argument ensured. 

During this exchange, Plaintiff made a statement that the officers had thrown him on the ground. This 

also is a prior consistent statement. Thus, only the statement may be admitted as a prior consistent 

statement but only if Defendants admit evidence that Plaintiff made an inconsistent statement as to the 

cause of his injury. Finally, before the documents may be admitted, there must be an adequate 

foundation is laid.

Therefore, Defendants’ motion regarding Exhibit 1 is GRANTED in part. The first page may 

be admitted if M. Hankins testifies. If she does not, only Plaintiff’s statement made as to the cause of 

his injury may be admitted as a prior consistent statement but only if Defendants present evidence 

Plaintiff may an inconsistent statement regarding the cause of his injury. In addition, before the 

documents may be admitted, there must be an adequate foundation is laid.

ii. Exhibit 2

Page 1 is a notice of lodging filed by Defendants related to a prior motion. As noted above, 

this pleading has no tendency to prove any issue pertinent to this case and it will not be admitted. 

Pages 2 through 4 is a letter from counsel to Plaintiff regarding discovery issues. This letter is not 

relevant to the issues for the jury and it will not be admitted. Thus, Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 2 

is GRANTED.

iii. Exhibit 3

Pages 1-2 make up a request by Plaintiff seeking a review of his prison file. These pages are 

not relevant to the issue for the jury and will not be admitted. Thus, as to these pages the motion is 

GRANTED.

Pages 4-7 through seven are pages from a document request propounded on Bonilla and 

contain counsel’s objections and other responses to the document request. At this time, the Court 

cannot determine the admissibility of the documents. However, the motion to exclude them for the 

reasons asserted by Defendants—that they are not verified, the document is incomplete, it fails to have 

the documents produced attached—is DENIED. On the other hand, no discovery response will be 

shown to the jury unless and until all objections stated in the responses have been ruled upon. Then, if 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 9 of 19
10

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

all objections are overruled, only the portion of the substantive response—but not the stated 

objections—will be shown to the jury.

Defendants object to the use of non-party correctional officers’ reports relating to the incident 

on October 5, 2006, as contained in Exhibit 3, pages 8-10. (Doc. 186 at 5). Defendants contend that 

these pages are irrelevant and contain multiple levels of hearsay. Id. The Court notes that these pages 

directly pertain to the use of force during the October 5, 2006 incident and are thus relevant. 

However, they contain out-of-court statements. The Court presumes that Plaintiff would introduce 

these documents to argue the truth of the statements contained in the document. Thus, the documents 

are hearsay. 

The Court has reviewed these documents and finds that no hearsay exception has been claimed

that would permit the use of the document (page 8) created by Officer Scott. (Doc. 151 at 45). 

Specifically, neither Plaintiff nor the Defendants have disclosed Officer Scott as witness at trial. (Doc. 

170 at 5). Thus, the document generated by Officer Scott will not be admitted and the motion as to 

this report is GRANTED.

However, Defendants have disclosed Officer Loscano a witness. (Doc. 170 at 5 ¶ ii(5)). 

Should Defendants call Officer Loscano to testify, the documents (pages 9-10) may be admissible 

under an exception to the hearsay rule on cross-examination. See Fed. R. Evid. 803. Similarly, 

Plaintiff may elect to use the document for purposes of impeachment. 

Therefore, Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the report of Officer Scott as contained in 

Exhibit 3 is GRANTED. However, Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the report of Officer 

Loscano is DENIED without prejudice. 

iv. Exhibit 4

As to pages 1-5 and pages 13-26 of Exhibit 4, Plaintiff may not proceed at trial by submitting 

written statements but, instead, must testify before the jury and must be available for crossexamination. Use of such statements would not permit the jury to judge Plaintiff’s credibility and 

weigh the inferences of his testimony, which is the primary function of the jury. See e.g., Cockrum v. 

Whitney, 479 F.2d 84, 86 (9th Cir. 1973). Thus, pages 1-4 of Exhibit 4 will not be admitted, except 

for impeachment. Pages 6-9 are the responses to Plaintiff’s grievances. These documents are hearsay, 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 10 of 19
11

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

and no hearsay exception has been claimed, and are not pertinent to whether Defendants used 

excessive force on the date in question and will not be admitted. Finally, pages 10-12, the docket in 

Plaintiff’s state court habeas proceeding, will not be admitted for the reasons set forth above. Thus, 

the motion as to Exhibit 4 is GRANTED.

v. Exhibit 5

Exhibit 5 is made up of correspondence to Plaintiff from various state officials. The 

documents are hearsay and no hearsay exception has been claimed and they are not relevant to the 

issues at hand. Thus, the motion as to Exhibit 5 is GRANTED.

vi. Exhibit 6

Page 1 of Exhibit 6 is a treatment note from an ophthalmology visit. Once again, Plaintiff has 

not designated a medical expert on this topic and the information regarding the opinions and 

observations of the doctor are hearsay and may not be admitted without a testifying doctor. Plaintiff 

avers that “[he] and his mother should be able to testify...as she had a near fatal car accident and is a 

medical doctor [and] knows that things can happen years late from head trauma.” (Doc. 199 at 22). 

However, this is insufficient grounds to qualify Plaintiff or his mother as an expert pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P 26(a). Thus, the document may be used to cross-examine a medical expert but there seems to 

be no exception to the hearsay rule, and no hearsay exception has been claimed, which would allow 

introduction of the medical records. Thus, page 1 will not be admitted.

Pages 2-8 are pages from a document requests propounded on Defendants and contain 

counsel’s objections and other responses to the document request. At this time, the Court cannot 

determine the admissibility of the documents. However, the motion to exclude them for the reasons 

asserted by Defendants—that they are not verified, the document is incomplete, it fails to have the 

documents produced attached—is DENIED. On the other hand, no discovery response will be shown 

to the jury unless and until all objections stated in the responses have been ruled upon. Then, if all 

objections are overruled, only the portion of the substantive response—but not the stated objections—

will be shown to the jury. 

Thus, the motion as to Exhibit 6 is GRANTED as to page 1. Whether the remaining pages 

will be admitted cannot be determined at this time and, therefore, the motion as to these pages is 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 11 of 19
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

DENIED without prejudice.

vii. Exhibit 7

Defendants object to the use of page 1 because it is not the complete RVR issued to Plaintiff as 

a result of the incident at issue. Defendants indicate they have identified the complete RVR as an 

exhibit and suggest it be marked as a joint exhibit. Thus, the Court will allow the complete RVR to be 

marked as a joint exhibit and the parties may use that new exhibit. 

Pages 2-3 are declarations of two inmates. These documents may be used for impeachment 

purposes only and may not be admitted. Notably, inmate Glover has not been identified as a witness 

but inmate Key is schedule to testify. At that time, Mr. Key can tell the jury what he saw occur.

Pages 4-6 is a report of an investigator indicating what inmate Moore said occurred. Once 

again, the document may not be admitted except for impeachment but Mr. Moore may testify as to 

what he saw happen. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

viii. Exhibit 8

Page 1-2 of Exhibit 8 is an order related to service of the complaint on Defendant Garcia. 

Because this document fails to shed any light upon whether he or Bonilla used excessive for on 

October 5, 2006, the order will not be admitted.

Pages 3-7 is the response by Garcia to interrogatories. Defendants object that the document is 

incomplete (though how so, is not explained) were not verified (though why not, is not explained) and 

they have been written on by Plaintiff. Defendants concede the document may be used for 

impeachment purposes. At this time, the Court cannot determine the admissibility of the documents. 

However, the motion to exclude them for the reasons asserted by Defendants is DENIED. On the 

other hand, no discovery response will be shown to the jury unless and until all objections stated in the 

responses have been ruled upon. Then, if all objections are overruled, only the portion of the 

substantive response—but not the stated objections—will be shown to the jury.

Thus, the motion as to Exhibit 8 is GRANTED as to pages 1-2. Whether the remaining pages 

will be admitted cannot be determined at this time and, therefore, the motion as to these pages is 

DENIED without prejudice.

///

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 12 of 19
13

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

ix. Exhibit 9

Pages 1-3 is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. This document is irrelevant to the issues 

at hand and will not be admitted.

Page 4 is a letter to Plaintiff’s mother explaining why he was placed in the SHU. It does not 

bear on whether Plaintiff was subjected to excessive force on October 5, 2006 and it will not be 

admitted. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

x. Exhibit 10

Page 1 is a letter from Plaintiff’s mother to the Warden at KVSP in which she requests specific 

medical treatment for Plaintiff. This document fails to shed any light on whether Plaintiff suffered 

excessive force on October 5, 2006 and will not be admitted. Notably, whether Plaintiff received 

sufficient medical care as a result of the incident is not at issue.

Pages 2-6 is Garcia’s response to a document production request. At this time, the Court 

cannot determine the admissibility of the documents. However, the motion to exclude them for the 

reasons asserted by Defendants—that they are not verified, Plaintiff has inserted underlining on the 

document which, they claim, inexplicably, is hearsay document is incomplete, and it fails to have the 

documents produced attached—is DENIED. 

Pages 7-9 are medical records. These documents contain hearsay, and no hearsay exception 

has been claimed, and they require testimony by a medical expert in order to be admitted. Plaintiff has 

not identified a medical expert for testimony. Thus, these documents will not be admitted unless there 

is an adequate foundation laid and these other issues can be overcome. However, because the Court 

cannot determine at this time whether the documents can be admitted, the motion is DENIED without 

prejudice.

On the other hand, no discovery response will be shown to the jury unless and until all 

objections stated in the responses have been ruled upon. Then, if all objections are overruled, only the 

portion of the substantive response—but not the stated objections—will be shown to the jury.

Thus, the motion as to Exhibit 10 is GRANTED as to page 1. Whether the remaining pages 

will be admitted cannot be determined at this time and, therefore, the motion as to these pages is 

DENIED without prejudice.

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 13 of 19
14

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

xi. Exhibit 11

Exhibit 11 contains two treatment notes from an ophthalmology visit. Once again, Plaintiff has 

not designated a medical expert on this topic and the information regarding the opinions and 

observations of the doctor are hearsay, and no hearsay exception has been claimed, and may not be 

admitted without a testifying doctor. Thus, page 1 will not be admitted. Thus, the motion as to 

Exhibit 11 is GRANTED.

xii. Exhibit 12

Page 1 is a page of points and authorities filed by defendants related to their dispositive 

motion. This document contains argument of counsel and is not evidence. Thus, it will not be 

admitted.

Pages 2-3 are the medical reports prepared for Defendants after the incident on October 5, 

2006. The issue at hand is whether Defendants used force on Plaintiff, but the converse is not true. 

Thus, Defendants’ medical condition has no bearing on the elements of Plaintiff’s claim. 

Thus, the motion as to Exhibit 12 is GRANTED.

xiii. Exhibit 13

Pages 1-2 and 5-7 are portions of interrogatory responses by Garcia. Defendants object to 

these documents being admitted because they are incomplete, contain underlining and hearsay. At this 

time, the Court cannot determine the admissibility of the documents. However, the motion to exclude 

them for the reasons asserted by Defendants—that they are not verified, the document is incomplete, it 

fails to have the documents produced attached—is DENIED. On the other hand, no discovery 

response will be shown to the jury unless and until all objections stated in the responses have been 

ruled upon. Then, if all objections are overruled, only the portion of the substantive response—but not 

the stated objections—will be shown to the jury.

Pages 3-4 are the requests for admission propounded by Plaintiff to Defendants. The requests 

are not relevant to any of the issues for the jury. Thus, they will not be admitted.

Thus, the motion as to Exhibit 13 is GRANTED as to pages 3-4. Whether the remaining 

pages will be admitted cannot be determined at this time and, therefore, the motion as to these pages is 

DENIED without prejudice.

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 14 of 19
15

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

xiv. Exhibit 14

This exhibit contains two orders issued by the Court. These documents are not relevant to the 

issue of whether Defendants used excessive force and will not be admitted. Thus, the motion as to 

Exhibit 14 is GRANTED.

xv. Exhibit 15

Page 1 is a letter from counsel to Plaintiff. It is not relevant and will not be admitted. Pages 2-

14 are the complaint and docket filed in another case in which Garcia is a defendant. For the reasons 

set forth above, they are not relevant and will not be admitted.

Pages 15-18 are various privilege logs submitted by Defendants in discovery. The purpose of 

such a privilege log is to establish a basis for the withholding of certain documents which would 

otherwise be responsive pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34. See e.g., United States v. Union Pac. R. 

Co., CIV06-1740FCDKJM, Case No. 2007 WL 1500551, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2007). The 

documents are not relevant to the issues to be decided by the jury and, therefore, will not be admitted.

Pages 19-21 are portions of responses by Bonilla to interrogatories. Defendants object to these 

documents being admitted because they are incomplete, contain underlining and hearsay. At this time, 

the Court cannot determine the admissibility of the documents. However, the motion to exclude them 

for the reasons asserted by Defendants—that they are not verified, the document is incomplete, it fails 

to have the documents produced attached—is DENIED. On the other hand, no discovery response 

will be shown to the jury unless and until all objections stated in the responses have been ruled upon. 

Then, if all objections are overruled, only the portion of the substantive response—but not the stated 

objections—will be shown to the jury.

Thus, the motion as to Exhibit 15 is GRANTED as to pages 1-18. Whether the remaining 

pages will be admitted cannot be determined at this time and, therefore, the motion as to these pages is 

DENIED without prejudice.

xvi. Exhibit 16

This exhibit is a portion of Bonilla opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 

These documents are not relevant to the issue of whether Defendants used excessive force and will not 

be admitted. Thus, the motion as to Exhibit 16 is GRANTED.

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 15 of 19
16

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

xvii. Exhibit 17

Page 1 is a declaration by Plaintiff and page 2 is a statement Plaintiff made in a request for an 

inmate interview. For the reasons set forth above, these documents will not be admitted and may be 

used only for impeachment purposes. Thus, the motion as to Exhibit 17 is GRANTED.

xviii. Exhibit 18

Pages 1-4 seem to be a portion of a legal treatise. This document is not relevant and is an 

improper attempt to instruct the jury on the law. For the reasons set forth above, they will not be 

admitted.

Page 5 is a letter from the court reporter provided Plaintiff his transcript for review. It is not 

relevant to the issues at hand and will not be admitted.

Thus, the motion as to Exhibit 18 is GRANTED.

10. Motion in Limine #2 – Limiting Plaintiff’s Testimony (Doc. 187)

Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from offering medical opinion evidence regarding the 

nature and extent of his injuries. (Doc. 187 at 2). Specifically, Defendants argue that the Court should 

preclude Plaintiff from testifying to any “diagnosis, opinions, inferences, or causation” or “from 

offering any opinions or inferences from any medical records.” Id. Defendants concede that Plaintiff 

may testify to what he experienced on October 5, 2006. Id. 

A person is permitted to testify as to “scientific, technical or other specialized” information if 

the witness is “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education” and the 

testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, the testimony is based upon reliable analysis and the 

witness applies this reliable analysis to the data. Fed. R. Evid. 702. However, an individual lacking 

such qualifications may only testify as to opinions “rationally based on the witness’s perception” that 

is not based on specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701.

Plaintiff argues that he should be able to say “how he felt his medical injuries should’ve been 

handled...or how they were handled.” (Doc. 200 at 1-2). He further argues that he should be able to 

testify as to what he heard concerning his “diagnosis, inference [and/or] causation” concerning his 

injuries. Id. at 3-4. However, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he possesses that Plaintiff has any 

medical expertise. Thus, Plaintiff will not be permitted to offer any medical opinion or to report what 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 16 of 19
17

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

any medical professionals told him about his condition. 

Nonetheless, Plaintiff may testify about his own perceptions of what he felt when the injury 

occurred and how it feels now, how his physical condition impacts his life, the treatment he observed 

that he received (i.e., the wound was bandaged, cleaned, x-rayed, etc., but not the results of any 

medical tests or procedures) and as to any other information that is within his own personal knowledge 

based upon his own perceptions. Likewise, if relevant, he may cross-examine any testifying medical 

expert about Plaintiff’s condition but he is not personally permitted to testify as to any scientific 

conclusions regarding his medical condition. In all other respects, Defendants’ motion in limine #2 is 

GRANTED.

B. Motion in Limine #3 – Exclusion of Plaintiff’s Medical Expert

Defendants request that the Court exclude Dr. Evelyan Thomas as a medical expert for trial, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 702. (Doc. 188 at 1-2). Previously, Plaintiff indicated that he will not 

present Dr. Thomas as an expert. (Doc. 183). Plaintiff indicated in his Objections to the Pretrial Order 

(Doc. 183) that Dr. Thomas would only testify to what she perceived and would not offer any expert 

testimony. Id. The Court thus limited Dr. Thomas’ testimony and held that she may only testify to 

what she perceived. (Doc. 190 at 2). The Court expressly stated that Dr. Thomas will not be permitted 

to offer any expert medical testimony. Id. 

In his response to Defendants’ motion in limine, Plaintiff seems to argue that his mother should 

be able to testify as to the course of Plaintiff’s medical treatment arising out of October 5, 2006. See 

(Doc. 201). The Court will not reconsider its prior Order, (Doc. 190), and reiterates that Dr. Thomas’ 

testimony is strictly limited to what she perceived. Therefore, Motion in Limine #3 is DENIED as 

moot. 

ORDER

Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion in limine (Doc. 135) is DENIED; 

2. Defendants’ motion in limine (Doc. 186) to exclude certain trial exhibits is GRANTED IN 

PART as follows: 

a. Defendants’ motion regarding Exhibit 1 is GRANTED in part. The first page may 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 17 of 19
18

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

be admitted if M. Hankins testifies. If she does not, only Plaintiff’s statement made 

as to the cause of his injury may be admitted as a prior consistent statement but only 

if Defendants present evidence Plaintiff may an inconsistent statement regarding the 

cause of his injury. In addition, before the documents may be admitted, there must 

be an adequate foundation is laid.

b. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 2 is GRANTED.

c. Defendants’ motion as pages 1-3 and 8 of Exhibit 3 is GRANTED. However, 

Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the report of Officer Loscano (pages 9-10)

is DENIED without prejudice. Whether pages 4-7 will be admitted cannot be 

determined at this time and, therefore, the motion as to these pages is DENIED

without prejudice.

d. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 4 is GRANTED;

e. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 5 is GRANTED;

f. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 6 is GRANTED as to page 1. Whether the 

remaining pages will be admitted cannot be determined at this time and, therefore, 

the motion as to these pages is DENIED without prejudice;

g. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 7 is GRANTED;

h. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 8 is GRANTED as to pages 1-2. Whether the 

remaining pages will be admitted cannot be determined at this time and, therefore, 

the motion as to these pages is DENIED without prejudice;

i. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 9 is GRANTED;

j. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 10 is GRANTED as to page 1. Whether the 

remaining pages will be admitted cannot be determined at this time and, therefore, 

the motion as to these pages is DENIED without prejudice;

k. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 11 is GRANTED;

l. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 12 is GRANTED;

m. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 13 is GRANTED as to pages 3-4. Whether the 

remaining pages will be admitted cannot be determined at this time and, therefore, 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 18 of 19
19

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

the motion as to these pages is DENIED without prejudice;

n. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 14 is GRANTED;

o. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 15 is GRANTED as to pages 1-18. Whether the 

remaining pages will be admitted cannot be determined at this time and, therefore, 

the motion as to these pages is DENIED without prejudice;

p. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 16 is GRANTED;

q. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 17 is GRANTED;

r. Defendants’ motion as to Exhibit 18 is GRANTED;

3. Defendants’ motion in limine to limit Plaintiff’s testimony (Doc. 187) is GRANTED; 

4. Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff’s medical expert (Doc. 188) is DENIED

as moot; and

5. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion in 

limine (Doc. 202) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 204 Filed 07/17/13 Page 19 of 19