Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05459/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05459-29/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARYLON BOYD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-04-5459 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN

LIMINE TO ALLOW THE TAPE

RECORDED STATEMENT OF WITNESS

JOE CAMPOS TO BE ADMITTED INTO

EVIDENCE; VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 149)

Before the Court is defendants’ Motion in Limine, filed October 24, 2006, To Allow

The Tape Recorded Statement Of Witness Joe Campos To Be Admitted Into Evidence

pursuant to Rule 804(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, or, in the alternative, pursuant

to Rule 807. Plaintiffs have filed opposition to the motion; defendants have filed a reply. 

Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court

finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b),

VACATES the December 1, 2006 hearing, and rules as follows:

1. Rule 804(b)(6) requires, inter alia, a showing that the declarant is unavailable. 

See Fed. R. Ev. 804(b)(6). Although, to date, Campos has refused to be deposed,

defendants have not shown, in light of the number of months remaining prior to the

June 11, 2007 trial date, that Campos will at that time “persist in refusing to testify.” See

Fed. R. Ev. 804(a)(2). Accordingly, to the extent defendants seek to admit Campos’s

Case 3:04-cv-05459-MMC Document 178 Filed 11/28/06 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

1

 In light of this ruling, the Court expresses no opinion as to whether the other

requirements of Rule 804(b)(6) have been satisfied.

2

 In light of this ruling, the Court expresses no opinion as to whether the other

requirements of Rule 807 have been satisfied.

2

statement pursuant to Rule 804(b)(6), the motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice to

defendants’ reasserting the motion at a date closer to trial.1

2. Rule 807 requires, inter alia, a showing that “the statement is more probative on

the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure

through reasonable efforts.” See Fed. R. Ev. 807. Here, as discussed above, defendants

have not shown they will be unable to procure Campos’s testimony at trial. Accordingly, to

the extent defendants seek to admit Campos’s statement pursuant to Rule 807, the motion

is hereby DENIED without prejudice to defendants’ reasserting the motion at a date closer

to trial.2

 This order terminates Docket No. 149.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05459-MMC Document 178 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 2