Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556-30/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

1 ORDER ON M OTIONS IN LIM INE

 GREGORY L. MYERS, 095743

CATHERINE J. McCORD, 201448

 MYERS & MAYFIELD

 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

 Attorneys at Law

 1130 E. SHAW AVE., SUITE 200

 FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93710

 TELEPHONE (559) 222-1005 

 

Attorneys for Defendant, BRIAN TWEDT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLY LOUEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRESNO POLICE OFFICER BRIAN

TWEDT; THE CITY OF FRESNO,

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 1:04-CV-06556-OWW-SMS

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Trial Date: September 5, 2007

In this action in which the plaintiff seeks recovery for violation of her civil rights under the

United States and California constitutions, and for damages related to the intentional infliction of

emotional distress, this Court conducted An August 24, 2007 hearing on the motions in limine of

defendants City of Fresno and Brian Twedt, and the plaintiff, Holly Louen. The plaintiff appeared in

person and through her attorney, Kevin Little. The City of Fresno appeared by counsel Erica Camarena

and James D .Weakley of Weakley, Ratliff, Arendt & Mcguire. Brian Twedt appeared by counsel

Gregory L. Myers, Myers & Mayfield. 

This Court issuesthe following rulings on defendants’ motions in limine. Further discussion on

and grounds for the rulings are available from the transcript of the August 24, 2007 hearing.

/ / /

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 285 Filed 09/06/07 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

 M YERS & M AYFIELD

 1130 E. SHAW AVE., STE. 200

 FRESNO, CA 93710 2 ORDER ON M OTIONS IN LIM INE

1. Motion in Limine precluding testimony or comment regarding settlement offers

by the parties: The Court grants this motion and orders the parties, their attorneys and witnesses no

to testify or comment regarding settlement discussionsincluding but not limited to offers and demands

made by the parties.

2. Motion in Limine regarding exclusion of non-party witnessesfrom the courtroom:

The Court grants this motion and orders all witnesses excluded from the courtroom so long as they

may be called as witnesses at the trial.

3. Motion in Limine precluding testimony or reference to insurance: The Court grants

this motion and orders the parties, their attorneys and witnesses not to testify or comment regarding

the existence or non-existence ofliability insurance which may or may not apply to the instant litigation.

4. Motion in Limine precluding expert opinions by non-experts: The Court recognizes

that witnesses may offer opinion testimony within the constraints of Federal Rules of Evidence § 701

but that such opinions are not expert opinions. Court The Court grants this motion and orders the

parties, their attorneys and witnesses not to testify or comment regarding expert opinions that are

offered by non-experts.

5. Motion in Limine precluding reference to experts who do not testify at trial: The

Court grants this motion and orders the parties, their attorneys and witnesses not to testify or comment

regarding any reports by experts who are not permitted to testify in as much as such testimony would

be hearsay.

6. Motion in Limine precluding testimony regarding the Myrna Loran matter:

The Court grants this motion and orders the parties, their attorneys and witnesses not to testify or

comment regarding discussion regarding the litigation, investigation or any discipline associated with

the claims brought by Myrna Loran subject to discussions which may be relevant if the plaintiff pursues

a “Monell claim.” Any other use of the Myrna Loran claim would be the use of a bad act to prove

conduct which is inadmissable.

7. Motion in Limine precluding testimony regarding the lawsuit entitled Twedt v.

Franklin: The Court grants this motion and orders the parties, their attorneys and witnesses not to

testify or comment regarding testimony given by Officer Twedt in the personal injury case brought

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 285 Filed 09/06/07 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

 M YERS & M AYFIELD

 1130 E. SHAW AVE., STE. 200

 FRESNO, CA 93710 3 ORDER ON M OTIONS IN LIM INE

as a result of an auto accident involving Vicki Twedt and which Officer Twedt was a party for

purposes of pursuing a loss of consortium claim.

8. Motion in Limine precluding testimony regarding the truthfulness of Officer

Brian Twedt: The Court grants this motion and orders the parties, their attorneys and witnesses not

to testify or comment regarding the credibility of Officer Twedt or any other party or witness. 

9. Motion in Limine precluding testimony regarding Laura Guzman-Magill’s

opinion as to the probable cause of any arrest by Officer Brian Twedt: The Court grants this

motion and orders the parties, their attorneys and witnesses not to testify or comment regarding her

opinion regarding the probable cause for an arrest which was discussed while she was employed by the

Fresno County District Attorney’s office. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2007 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 285 Filed 09/06/07 Page 3 of 3