Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00799/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00799-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

DORIS RAY KNOX; JERRY WAYNE 

KNOX; JEREMY EDWARD MOORE, 

individually and as successor-in-interest to 

VERONICA LYNN CANTER, deceased,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal 

corporation;

EDWARD CHRISTOPHER LOUCHREN,

individually and in his capacity as a police 

officer for the CITY OF FRESNO; 

DOUGLAS EDWARD COX, individually 

and in his capacity as a police officer for the 

CITY OF FRESNO,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00799-EPG

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(ECF Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 75)

On May 27, 2016, this Court heard the motions in limine of Plaintiffs Doris Ray Knox, 

Jerry Wayne Knox, and Jeremy Edward Moore (APlaintiffs@) and Defendants City of Fresno, 

Edward Christopher Louchren, and Douglas Edward Cox. (ECF Nos. 71, 75, 66, 67, 68, 69.) 

Plaintiffs appeared by counsel Arturo Gonzalez, Wesley Overson, Robert Esposito, and Sabrina 

Larson. Defendants appeared by counsel Bruce Praet. The Court further considered the 

arguments of counsel on the record at the time of the hearing. The Court ruled from the bench 

on the motions and incorporates those rulings herein. For the reasons described on the record 

Case 1:14-cv-00799-EPG Document 94 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 5
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

and in this Order, the Court issues the following written order confirming its rulings on 

Defendants= and Plaintiffs’ motions in limine. 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 to preclude reference to 

the number of law enforcement officer deaths in recent years. For the reasons set forth on the 

record, Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1 is GRANTED as to Phase One (Individual Liability) 

of the trial; provided, however, that individual officers may be questioned about their 

subjective fears with respect to officer deaths (based on their own knowledge) and experts may 

testify that they have been involved in statistical studies to lay the foundation for their 

expertise. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 2 is RESERVED as to Phase Two (Monell

Liability) of trial.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 2

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 to preclude reference to 

Veronica Canter’s rap sheet and arrest/conviction history. For the reasons set forth on the 

record, Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 2 is GRANTED with respect to any liability phases of 

trial. Any references to Canter’s arrest/conviction history in the damages phase of trial remain 

subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 3

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 to preclude references to 

Veronica Canter’s history of illegal drug use. For the reasons set forth on the record, Plaintiffs’ 

Motion in Limine No. 3 is GRANTED with respect to any liability phases of trial. Any 

references to Canter’s history of illegal drug use in the damages phase of trial remain subject to 

Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 to preclude reference to the Health 

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) or any suggestion that it could have 

prevented the defendant officers from learning about Canter’s prior confinement under 

Case 1:14-cv-00799-EPG Document 94 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 5
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

California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5150. For the reasons set forth on the record, 

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 is GRANTED with respect to expert testimony and 

RESERVED with respect to testimony by the individual officer defendants.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 5

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 to preclude any reference 

to the violation of any protective orders by Roger Clark, whom they intend to call as an expert 

witness. For the reasons set forth on the record, Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 5 is 

GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 6

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 to preclude any reference 

to the negative impact(s) that a verdict for Plaintiffs would have on the individual officer 

defendants. For the reasons set forth on the record, Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 6 is 

GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 7

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702 to preclude the admission 

of exhibits K and P of the expert report of defense expert Craig Fries. The parties reached 

agreement with respect to exhibit K, leaving only exhibit P, the computer animation, at issue. 

For the reasons set forth on the record, Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine is GRANTED with respect 

to exhibit P.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 8

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) to exclude any 

undisclosed experts or late-produced expert reports. Plaintiffs also filed a separate, but 

associated, motion to limit the scope of testimony by Venu Gopal, M.D. (ECF No. 75.) For 

the reasons set forth on the record, Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine are GRANTED with respect 

to any expert opinions that he forms now or that were not offered in his coroner’s report. Dr. 

Gopal may, however, testify to his report, any errors in that report, and information about 

Canter’s autopsy for which he has personal knowledge.

///

Case 1:14-cv-00799-EPG Document 94 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 5
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

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 9

Plaintiffs’ move to admit the jury verdict in Enriquez et al. v. City of Fresno et al., Case 

No. 1:10-cv-00581-AWI-DLB. For the reasons set forth on the record, Plaintiffs’ Motion in 

Limine No. 9 is DENIED. 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1

Defendants move under Federal Rule of Evidence 404 to exclude evidence of 

Defendant Louchren’s instances of past officer misconduct. For the reasons set forth on the 

record, Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 is GRANTED; provided, however, that these 

instances may be used for impeachment purposes if Defendants open the door to this topic.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2

Defendants move under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and 404(a) to exclude any

reference to Canter’s prior mental health history not known to Defendant officers at the time of 

the shooting. For the reasons set forth on the record, Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 is 

DENIED. The parties are invited to propose jury instructions limiting the use of this evidence 

to the particular causes of action for which it is admitted.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3

Defendants move under Federal Rule of Evidence 407 to exclude any reference to 

policy changes by the City of Fresno following the shooting. For the reasons set forth on the 

record, Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 is GRANTED with respect to any policy that was 

published after the date of the shooting. 

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4

Defendants move under Federal Rule of Evidence 703 to exclude expert testimony on 

studies or articles published after the date of the shooting. The parties were directed to submit 

supplemental briefing, as explained on the record, no later than May 31, 2016, on studies or 

articles subject to this motion.

\\\

Case 1:14-cv-00799-EPG Document 94 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 5
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

The parties did not submit any supplemental briefing. Thus, the motion is RESERVED

for determination at trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00799-EPG Document 94 Filed 06/02/16 Page 5 of 5