Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00083/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00083-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KONG MENG XIONG; and Case No.: 1:13-cv-00083-SKO

LUH XIONG Consolidated with 1:13-cv-00111-SKO

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDUARDO CHAVEZ; and JAMES

LODWICK,

Defendants.

 

 

ORDER ON PARTIES' MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE

(Docs. 87, 89, 90, 91)

__________________________________/

The Court conducted a telephonic hearing on the parties' Motions in Limine on August 28, 

2015. Plaintiff Kong Meng Xiong ("Kong") appeared telephonically through his counsel, M. 

Jeffery Kallis, Esq., and Steven Berki, Esq.; Plaintiff Luh Xiong ("Luh") appeared telephonically 

through his counsel Adante Pointer, Esq.; and Defendant Officers Chavez and Lodwick

("Defendants") appeared telephonically through their counsel Dale Allen, Esq., and Kevin Allen, 

Esq.

A. Kong's Motions In Limine

As set forth on the record in open court, Plaintiff Kong Xiong's Motions in Limine 

("MIL") are ruled upon as follows:

1. Kong's MIL No. 1 to exclude Defendants' expert's testimony based on "enhanced 

video" or enhanced photos that Plaintiffs assert were never produced is DENIED.

Case 1:13-cv-00083-SKO Document 101 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 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

2

2. Kong's MIL No. 2 to prohibit any expert opinion on ultimate facts and legal 

conclusions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Expert opinions in the form of 

legal conclusions shall be excluded. Mr. Schott may testify about the technical aspects of the 

video he reviewed, but he may not give an opinion about what the video images depict.

3. Kong's MIL No. 3 to exclude evidence and testimony regarding Kong's alleged 

tattoos and physical markings is GRANTED.

4. Kong's MIL No. 4 to exclude testimony or reference to firearms, weapons, and 

contraband that was recovered from the residence or backyard of the home where the shooting 

occurred is GRANTED as to evidence seized from Kong's vehicle, DENIED as to the second gun 

subject to laying a proper foundation and establishing relevance, and DEFERRED as to postincident interview statements of Kong.

5. Kong's MIL No. 5 to exclude evidence of Kong's criminal history, arrests, charges, 

and convictions is GRANTED with a limited exception for use as impeachment evidence, but only 

to the extent Kong places this evidence at issue, and the relevance of the evidence is established by 

a proffer made outside the presence of the jury.

6. Kong's MIL No. 6 to prohibit evidence or testimony concerning Defendants' 

exoneration by the Review Board is GRANTED.

7. Kong's MIL No. 7 to exclude evidence, testimony, reference, or any argument 

which characterizes the party at the subject location as a "gang party" or persons in attendance as 

"gang members" is GRANTED, but DEFERRED with regard to evidence pertinent to the officers' 

training and experience responding to a reported Penal Code 417 offense.

8. Kong's MIL No. 8 to prohibit evidence and testimony regarding Kong's alleged 

gang affiliations is GRANTED with a limited exception for use as impeachment evidence upon a 

proffer from Defendants outside the presence of the jury.

9. Kong's MIL No. 9 to exclude evidence from officers or third-party witnesses who 

do not have personal knowledge of the subject incident or Kong's damages is GRANTED, but 

deferred as to the testimony of Officer Deliman.

10. Kong's MIL No. 10 to exclude evidence and testimony regarding statements made 

Case 1:13-cv-00083-SKO Document 101 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 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

3

by third parties in police reports and any police reports themselves is DEFERRED to trial. 

11. Kong's MIL No. 11 to exclude evidence or testimony concerning Defendants' 

expert witness Steven Papenfuhs' opinion is DENIED.

12. Kong's MIL No. 12 to exclude evidence by Defendants' expert Steven Papenfuhs 

for failure to review documents concerning the current case is DENIED to the extent Mr. 

Papenfuhs offers testimony based upon documents he reviewed and testimony responding to 

appropriately posed hypothetical questions.

B. Defendants' Motions in Limine

1. Defendants' MIL No. 1 to exclude Plaintiffs' expert Gregg Stutchman is ruled upon 

as follows:

a. Mr. Stutchman's opinion regarding the microphone quality is excluded as 

disclosed untimely and as outside the scope of his retention as an expert;

b. Mr. Stutchman's exemplar testing conducted the night before his deposition 

is excluded as disclosed untimely; and

c. The ruling on Mr. Stutchman's opinions regarding waveform and 

spectrograph testing is deferred for trial.

2. Defendants' MIL No. 2 to exclude and limit introduction of evidence related to 

Merced Police Department approved weapons and munitions is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' expert 

Mr. Williams' offering ballistics testimony for which he was not disclosed as an expert, but 

DENIED as to testimony from Officers Chavez and Lodwick about the capability of the weapon 

and ammunition they carried.

3. Defendants' MIL No. 3 to exclude all evidence of claims not before the Court is 

DEFERRED to trial.

4. Defendants' MIL No. 4 to exclude evidence regarding Vang Thao and other 

bystanders is ruled upon as follows:

a. GRANTED as to evidence of Vang Thao's death;

b. DENIED as to evidence related to the presence of bystanders generally; and

c. DEFERRED as to evidence that Vang Thao was struck with a bullet.

Case 1:13-cv-00083-SKO Document 101 Filed 09/02/15 Page 3 of 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

4

5. Defendants' MIL No. 5 to exclude certain aspects of Plaintiffs' police practices 

expert T. T. Williams, Jr., is ruled upon as follows:

a. Mr. Williams will be permitted to testify to what he observed on the video 

because that comprises the basis for his ultimate opinion;

b. Mr. Williams' answers to hypothetical questions will be evaluated during 

the course of his trial testimony, and this issue is therefore DEFERRED;

c. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the remaining substance of Mr. 

Williams' testimony, and the Court will address any other disputes prior to his testimony at trial.

6. Defendants' MIL No. 6 to preclude Plaintiffs from using a 40-caliber semiautomatic handgun for demonstrative purposes is GRANTED.

7. Defendants' MIL No. 7 to exclude evidence of current or past media reports in any 

form about the current matter is DEFERRED.

8. Defendants' MIL No. 8 to exclude testimony in the form of rhetorical questions or 

speculation as to the officers' state of mind and to exclude reference to national media accounts of 

law enforcement is DEFERRED.

9. Defendants' MIL No. 9 to exclude evidence relating to Kong's medical billing 

records, Kong's medical providers, Kong's medical records, and Luh's medical billing records 

because they were not initially disclosed is GRANTED, but Kong may testify to his pain and 

suffering to the extent of his lay knowledge.

10. Defendants' MIL No. 10 to exclude the officers' personnel records is DENIED as to 

officers' statements to the investigative board related specifically to this incident.

11. Defendants' MIL No. 11 to deem admissible Kong's post-incident interview and 

Kong's criminal conviction under California Penal Code § 12024(d) is ruled upon as follows:

a. DENIED as to Kong's criminal conviction; and

b. DENIED as to all portions of Kong's post-incident interview.

C. Luh's Motions in Limine

1. Luh's MIL No. 1 to exclude Luh's criminal history is DEFERRED so that the 

admissibility of this evidence may be determined in context at trial.

Case 1:13-cv-00083-SKO Document 101 Filed 09/02/15 Page 4 of 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

5

2. Luh's MIL No. 2 to exclude testimony and evidence of items seized from Luh's 

home after the incident is DEFERRED to trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00083-SKO Document 101 Filed 09/02/15 Page 5 of 5