Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-51/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

GUY B. WALLACE (CSB# 176151) 

ELISA P. LAIRD (CSB# 225563) 

SCHNEIDER & WALLACE 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 421-7100 

Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 

TTY: (415) 421-1655 

JAMES C. STURDEVANT (CSB# 94551) 

MARK T. JOHNSON (CSB# 76904) 

THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM

A Professional Corporation 

475 Sansome Street, Suite 1750 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 477-2410 

Facsimile: (415) 477-2420 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

LOUIS A. LEONE (CSB #099874) 

KATHLEEN DARMAGNAC (CSB #150843) 

STUBBS & LEONE 

2175 N. California Blvd., Suite 900 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 974-8600 

Facsimile: (925) 974-8601 

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGIE CHERRY and ESTORIA 

CHERRY on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs.

THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN 

FRANCISCO (“City College”); et al. 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: C04-4981 WHA 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PARTIES’ 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1 

Case No. C04-4981 WHA 

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 618-1 Filed 02/09/2006 Page 1 of 4 Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 619 Filed 02/09/06 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

On January 30, 2006, these matters came before the court during the Final PreTrial Conference at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 9 of the above-entitled court, the Honorable 

William H. Alsup, Judge presiding. The court having read, reviewed and considered the 

moving papers relating to the parties’ motions in limine orders as follows: 

1) Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude Defendants from raising any 

affirmative defenses not previously pled is DENIED as premature. With two exceptions, 

however, (1) the issues of equivalent facilitation and field tolerances are covered by the 

pleading and (2) Defendants must establish the predicate required by 28 CFR 

35.150(a)(3) before pursuing the issue of undue burden as to any violation issue. 

Except for these two issues, Plaintiffs’ motion is premature and therefore, denied 

without prejudice. Plaintiffs may raise this objection on a case by case basis at trial. 

2) Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude site inspection data and 

measurements not identified in the reports or depositions of Defendants’ experts is 

DENIED. Experts will be limited to what is contained in their reports, including the 

January 2006 supplementation, and the Court expressly finds that Defendants are 

entitled to add measurements to their supplemental reports. However, the Court also 

finds that any information regarding alleged site constraints must be contained in the 

original expert reports. Fact witnesses are not bound by what is in the expert reports.

Assuming they were properly disclosed and are not barred for other reasons, fact 

witnesses may testify about field measurements. 

3) Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 3 to prevent Defendants from argue 

technical or de minimus violations is GRANTED in part with respect to new construction, 

but DENIED with respect to existing facilities and remedies. There is no such defense 

as de minimus or technical with respect to new construction. If an item is outside of the 

requirement and the dimensional tolerance, even if only slightly, then it is a violation.

With respect to existing facilities, however, ADAAG is only a guide. There are other 

possible guides too. Therefore, the Court can take into account the degree of the 

violation of ADAAG when determining whether an item is a barrier to access in existing 

ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 2 

Case No. C04-4981 WHA 

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 618-1 Filed 02/09/2006 Page 2 of 4 Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 619 Filed 02/09/06 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

facilities, or not. In regards to remedies, however, the court must consider a number of 

factors and engage in a cost-benefit analysis that would take into account, amongst 

other factors, the bottom-line impact on the disabled and the feasibility of the remedy.

At this stage of the proceedings, the concept of de minimus will have some relevancy. 

4) Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude the OCR settlement is not 

addressed by this order. This issue was further addressed by the Court at a hearing 

held on Friday, February 3, 2006. The admissibility of the OCR settlement is governed 

by the Court’s February 6, 2006 Order re: Motions in Limine re: OCR Settlement Letter. 

5) Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude evidence of violations of 

Title II regulations, 28 CFR 35.105 and 28 CFR 35,150(d), and inadequacy of 

emergency plans, including the preclusion of Plaintiffs’ plan expert Manny Muniz is 

GRANTED provisionally. In regards to new construction, Mr. Muniz’s testimony 

regarding the importance of areas of rescue assistance and emergency plans is not 

relevant and he will not be allowed to testify. With respect to existing facilities, the Court 

will defer the issue of Mr. Muniz’s ability to testify until Plaintiffs have made an offer of 

proof to demonstrate how Mr. Muniz’s testimony will be relevant and admissible under 

Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Furthermore, Mr. Muniz may be able to testify at the 

remedial stage regarding the relative importance of areas of assistance to other types of 

violations.

6) Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ 

expert, Dr. Benjamin Mandac is DENIED. The Court finds that his testimony may have 

relevance. Objections to Dr. Mandac’s testimony will be handled on a question by 

question basis. 

7) Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude Dr. Edward Steinfeld is 

DENIED without prejudice. Objections to Dr. Steinfeld’s testimony will be handled on a 

question by question basis. 

ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 3 

Case No. C04-4981 WHA 

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 618-1 Filed 02/09/2006 Page 3 of 4 Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 619 Filed 02/09/06 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

8) Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 is to exclude Plaintiffs’ experts, Peter 

Margen and Gary Waters, DENIED without prejudice. Objections to Mr. Margen’s and 

Mr. Waters’ testimony will be handled on a question by question basis. 

9) Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5 to preclude Plaintiffs’ experts, Jurgen 

Dostert, Barry Atwood, Gary Waters and Peter Margen from testifying that existing 

facilities violated disability standards, and/or about the scope of the area subject to such 

standards is GRANTED in part. Experts are limited to what is contained in their reports.

Prior to testifying about whether an alleged barrier in an existing facility is in violation of 

Title II or Section 504, Plaintiffs must establish the predicate that the barrier is in an 

altered area within the meaning of the regulations. Proof of this predicate can come 

from either properly disclosed expert testimony or evidence independent of the experts. 

In regards to unaltered existing facilities or buildings, ADAAG is a guideline, and 

therefore, a limited amount of testimony regarding whether the facilities comply with 

ADAAG may be relevant. However, the Court is not going to allow testimony regarding 

every alleged ADAAG violation in existing facilities. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February ___, 2006 

___________________________________ 

 Honorable William H. Alsup 

United States District Court Judge 

ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 4 

Case No. C04-4981 WHA 

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 618-1 Filed 02/09/2006 Page 4 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPROVED

Judge William H. Alsup

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 619 Filed 02/09/06 Page 4 of 4