Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00656/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00656-0/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

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kurt Adam Oldenburg, )

 )

 Plaintiff, ) CIV 10-656 PHX RCB

 )

 vs. ) O R D E R

 )

City of Phoenix, et al. )

 )

 Defendants. )

 )

On November 19, 2012, this court conducted a final pretrial conference in this matter. This order reflects the

court’s rulings and the parties’ stipulations in open court

as to plaintiff’s motion in limine (Doc. 87), and defendants’

motions in limine (Docs. 94, 95, and 96). 

As to “Plaintiff’s Motion in Liminie [sic] re:

Plaintiff’s Criminal History (FRE Rules 609 and 403)” (Doc.

87), the parties stipulated to the admissibility of the 

eight convictions listed on page two (2) of the Defendant’s

Response in Opposition (Doc. 98). On the basis of that

stipulation, the court denies plaintiff’s motion in limine as 

Case 2:10-cv-00656-RCB Document 106 Filed 12/04/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

to those eight convictions. In all other respects, however,

the court grants plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude

evidence of his prior criminal history. 

As to defendants’ “Motion in Limine No. 1 to Preclude

Plaintiff from Introducing any Evidence that Use of Force used

by Defendants at Apartment Complex was Inappropriate,

Unreasonable, Excessive or Unlawful” (Doc. 94), the parties

stipulated to the admissibility of evidence in accordance with

“Defendant’s Non-Model Jury Instruction No. 1 Lawful Use of

Force by Defendants at the Apartment Complex[.]” See Joint

Proposed Jury Instructions (Doc. 89 at 46). The parties

further stipulated to the use of that instruction at trial. 

The foregoing stipulation renders moot defendants’ Motion in

Limine No. 1; and thus, the court denies that motion.

As to defendants’ “Motion in Limine No. 2 to Preclude

Plaintiff from Introducing Evidence Regarding an Unknown

Officer Having Allegedly Stepped on His Ankles” (Doc. 95), the

parties stipulated that another officer, not defendants Todd

Oliver and Cameron Wells, was holding plaintiff’s ankles. 

That stipulation renders moot defendants’ Motion in Limine No.

2; and thus, the court denies that motion. 

As to defendants’ “Motion in Limine No. 3 to Preclude

Plaintiff from Introducing at Trial Photographs of his

Injuries Allegedly taken on May 28, 2008 and his Color Booking

Photograph” (Doc. 96), the withdrawal of that motion, see Doc.

105 (“Defendants’ Withdrawal of Motion in Limine No. 3 Doc.

96),” obviates the need for a ruling by this court. 

As specified above, the court hereby ORDERS that:

Case 2:10-cv-00656-RCB Document 106 Filed 12/04/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 87) is denied in

part and granted in part;

(2) Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 (Doc. 94) is

denied as moot;

(3) Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 (Doc. 95) is

denied as moot; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

(4) setting this case for a jury trial on Monday, March

4, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in COURTROOM 606, Sixth Floor, Sandra

Day O’Connor United States Courthouse, 401 West Washington

Street, Phoenix, Arizona; COUNSEL SHALL APPEAR AT 8:30 A.M.

DATED this 4th day of December, 2012.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:10-cv-00656-RCB Document 106 Filed 12/04/12 Page 3 of 3