Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00148/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00148-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

Daniel L. Wainwright, # 193486 

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard 

Wavte & Camth LLP 

Fresno, CA 93720- 

Telephone: (559) 433-1300 

Facsimile: (559) 433-2300 

Attorneys for Defendant 

JOHN J. HOLLENBACK, JR. 

(SPACE BELOW FOR FILNG STAMP ONLY) 

MELVIN JONES, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN J. HOLLENBACK, JR., 

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

Case No. F-05-0148 OWW DLB ~ 

ORDER OF THE COURT REGARDING 

THE PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Hearing Date: May 1,2007 

Time: 12:00 p.m. 

Dept. 3 

The Honorable Judge Wanger 

Trial Date: May 8,2007 I 

On Monday, May 1, 2007, 2007 at 12:OO p.m. the parties pre-trial Motions in Limine 

came before this Court. Counsel for defendant, Daniel L. Wainwright, was present as was 

plaintiff, who is acting in pro per. 

The Court having reviewed and considered the parties Motions in Limine, all Opposition 

on file and all oral argument presented during the May 1, 2007 hearing hereby ORDERS, the 

following: 

Plaintiffs Motions in Limine 

1. The Court GRANTS plaintiffs Motion regarding the exclusion of evidence of 

\ 

II ORDER OF THE COURT REGARDING THE PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE I 

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 352 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 5
I 

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 

. BARSTOW 

WAYIE 8 

r* LLP 

: PLrsr El., 

plaintiffs November 1, 1984 Cal. Penal Code §§484-487 conviction. 

2. The Court DENIES plaintiffs Motion regarding the exclusion of evidence 

fraud conviction pursuant to Cal. Penal Code §476(a). 

3. The Court DENIES, in part, plaintiffs Motion regarding the exclusion of evidence 

pertaining to the domestic violence conviction of plaintiff, for purpose of establishing possible 

bias on the part of plaintiff and the victim of said domestic violence, Kea Chhay. fiW 

ecc -. Defendant's Motions in Limine 

1. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion regarding the preclusion of an) 

discussions regarding prior Court rulings andor orders in this case. 

2. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion precluding the introduction of an) 

&~ 0- 

argument, testimony or evidence regarding discussions between defense counsel and Plaintiff. 

3. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to preclude the parties from calling an! 

witnesses who were not previously identified in discovery or producing any documents no 

previously identified during discovery. 

4. The Court GRANTS, in part, Defendant's Motion regarding Plaintiff testifying a! 

to what took place during various family law hearings. The Court will permit Plaintiff to testifj 

as to what he saw, what he did, what he said andor what he heard (if not subject to anothe 

objection or motion in limine) during the underlying family law hearings. However, Plaintiff i: 

precluded from offering argument during his testimony as to what he thought the significance o 

what took place during the hearings means. Defendant is able to use the audio recordings fron 

the hearings to refute this testimony, if necessary. 

5. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion requesting that Plaintiff make ; 

preliminary showing of relevance before introducing evidence pertaining to actions that tool 

place before Defendant's involvement in the family law case. The Court has ordered tha 

Plaintiff provide a "offer of proof' regarding each statement, purportedly part of this conspiracy 

that occurred before January 21, 2004. The "offer of proof' will be e-mailed to 'the Court an, 

defense counsel no later than 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 3, 2007. The parties will appear 01 

Friday, May 4,2007 at 2:00 p.m. for further oral argument on this Motion. 

L 

ORDER OF THE COURT REGARDING THE PARTIES' MOTIONS INLlMlNE 

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 352 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 5
6. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to preclude any discussions between the 

(CCORII 

SHEPPIRD. 

I RIVE. 

parties pertaining to settlement. 

7. The Court GRANTS, in part, Defendant's Motion to preclude Plaintiff from 

offering any expert opinion testimony regarding his earning potential. Plaintiff will be permitted 

to testify regarding his employment history, earnings history, job prospects, W-2's, tax returns, 

etc. However, Plaintiff is precluded from offering any opinions from third parties with respect to 

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 

CI. EARSTOW 

WAITE b 

CAKRVIII LLP 

I.%" PLLCS E..T 

his past and future earning potential and capacity. 

8. The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion regarding whether or not Plaintiff can 

introduce any evidence from the immune judicial officers in order to support his claim of a 

conspiracy involving the immune judicial officers and Defendant. 

9. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion precluding Plaintiff from testifying 

regarding any inadmissible hearsay statements which, arguably, would be admissible pursuant to 

the hearsay exceptions set forth in FRE 801(d)(2)(E). The Court has ordered that Plaintiff set 

forth a "offer of proof'. (to be e-mailed to the Court and the parties no later than 4:00 p.m. on 

Thursday, May 3, 2007 which must establish, by preponderance of the evidence, the existence of 

a conspiracy, the foundation that Defendant had knowledge of the purported statements and 

adopted the same, the purpose of the statement was to facilitate the conspiracy and establish how 

the statement furthered the conspiracy. 

10. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to preclude any reference that any of the 

witnesses or parties have been represented by legal counsel. 

11. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion precluding any reference to the fact that 

Defendant had previously sought monetary sanctions with respect to Plaintiffs earlier discovery 

motion regarding request for admissions. This is consistent with the Court's ruling on 

Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 1, set firth above. 

12. The Court GRANTS any Defendant's motion precluding Plaintiff from suggesting 

that Leslie Jensen's non-appearance at an earlier federal hearing was part of some ongoing 

conspiracy as this is irrelevant. 

I 3 

ORDER OF THE COURT REGARDING THE PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 352 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 5
. I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

, EARSTOW 

, WAYTE a 

TH LLP 

(PLACE EIll 

13. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion precluding Plaintiff from commenting 

upon the fact that Defendant did not attend Plaintiffs February 26,2007 deposition. 

14. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion precluding Plaintiff from commenting 

upon the size of either Defendant's law firm or the law firm representing Defendant. 

15. The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to preclude any testimony regarding 

whether or not Plaintiff is a "deadbeat" Dad as this would be potentially relevant to show bias or 

some other personal animus. 

16. The Court GRANTS, in part, Defendant's Motion regarding the parties andlor 

witnesses' ability to assert privileges without any negative inference. However, the Court does 

permit Plaintiff to inquire as to any professional relationship between Leslie Jensen and Donald 

Strangio and the length of any such professional relationship. Plaintiff is precluded from 

questioning regarding the specific nature of said professional relationship, if any. 

17. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to preclude any reference of the fact that 

Leslie Jensen was previously represented by an attorney from the McCormick, Barstow law firm. 

18. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to preclude Plaintiff from stating, 

suggesting or implying that any changes to the Stanislaus County Superior Courthouse were the 

result of his complaints as this is speculative. 

19. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to preclude Plaintiff from referencing 

any testimony from Rosalind Jones regarding any of the events that are the subject of thir 

litigation. 

20. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to preclude Plaintiff from stating 01 

arguing that Defendant did, in fact, contact the Stanislaus County Housing Authority with respecl 

to his prospective employment. Plaintiff is permitted to testify as to what Defendant purportedl) 

said to him with respect to the Stanislaus County Housing Authority but cannot introduce 

evidence that Defendant actually did contact the Stanislaus County Housing Authority. 

21. The Court GRANTS, in part, Defendant's Motion to preclude Plaintiff frorr 

stating, suggesting or introducing any evidence regarding a hearsay declarant's attempt tc 

implicate other individuals or entities into this race-based conspiracy. The same "offer of proof' 

4 

ORDER OF THE COURT REGARDING THE PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 352 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 5
. i 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BARSTOW. 

WAYTE 8 

n LLP 

Plrsl CIS, 

as set forth in the Court's ruling in Defendant's Motion in Limine Nos. 5 and 9. Again, it is 

ordered that Plaintiff submit this "offer of proof," via e-mail, no later than 4:00 p.m. Thursday, 

May 3, 2007. The parties will then appear for further argument on this Motion on Friday, May 4, 

2007 at 2:00 p.m. 

22. This Motion is MOOT as the parties have agreed to produce, as a joint exhibit, 

excerpts from the January 22, 2004, April 15, 2004 and April 22, 2004 family law hearings for 

the Court. In addition, the parties agree to submit "transcripts" from these hearings in order to 

assist the jurors in listening to and comprehending the audio cassettes. 

23. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to preclude Plaintiff from discussing the 

wealth or poverty of either himself or Defendant. Such testimony, with respect to the Defendant, 

would only be permitted after a finding + of liability on the part of Defendant. Plaintiff is permitted 

to introduce evidence as to his damages d fyr 

24. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to preclude Plaintiff from appealing to 

the passions and prejudice of the jurors. 

25. This Motion has been MOOTED by the Court's 4/25/07 Court ruling (followed up 

on 4/27/07 with a formal opinion) regarding the testimony of Judge Marie Solvey-Silveira and 

Michael Tozzi 

26. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion precluding Plaintiff from commenting 

upon the fact that neither Judge Glen Ritchey nor Jack Jacobson have testified i 

DATED: ~ay 1,2007 

The Honorable Oliver wager 

5 

ORDER OF THE COURT REGARDING THE PARTIES' MOTIONS INLIMINE 

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 352 Filed 05/08/07 Page 5 of 5