Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06700/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06700-33/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY B. MEEKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN PARSONS,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06700-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Trial Date: February 10, 2010, 8:30 a.m. in

Courtroom 3 before the Honorable Judge Wanger

Plaintiff Gary B. Meeks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

medical care claim against Defendant John Parsons (“Defendant”). Motions for limine were

filed by both parties and were heard on January 29, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. – Attorney Nickolas A.

Kacprowski of Kirkland & Ellis LLP appeared in person on behalf of Plaintiff and Deputy

Attorney General John M. Feser, Jr. appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant.

Plaintiff’s motions in limine are ruled on as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 1 To Preclude Any Evidence, Testimony, or

Argument at Trial about Plaintiff’s Disciplinary Record in the California Prison

System and Plaintiff’s Arrest Record.

Ruling: GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Any evidence, testimony, or argument at trial about Mr. Meeks’s disciplinary record in

the California State Prison system and his arrest record are excluded as irrelevant and unduly

prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and 403. The Court’s ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff

1

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 193 Filed 02/08/10 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

opening the door or by a sufficient offer of proof that this evidence is relevant to transportation

and/or care and was considered in this case.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 2 To Preclude Any Evidence, Testimony, or

Argument at Trial about His Medical Treatments by Dr. Parsons Other Than

Treatment Related to the Fractured Jaw Plaintiff Suffered on January 5, 2002.

Ruling: DENIED. 

Evidence of other treatment provided by Dr. Parsons to Mr. Meeks is relevant pursuant to

Fed. R. Evid. 402.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 3 To Preclude Expert Testimony from Dr. Gary

Cummings, (D.D.S.) And Darinka Davis.

Ruling: GRANTED and DENIED.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Gary Cummings, a dentist, and Darinka

Davis, a nurse. These witnesses have been designated as rebuttal experts to Plaintiff’s expert, Dr.

Stephen Grifka, a medical doctor. Dr. Cummings may testify that he diagnoses, treats, and refers

broken jaws out to specialists for treatment. He may describe his percipient observations and the

actions he took with reference to Mr. Meeks’s broken jaw. Darinka Davis, R.N. may not express

any expert witness opinions. The motion is GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiff opening

the door by having Dr. Grifka testify as to general dentistry or nursing. Neither Dr. Cummings

nor Nurse Davis may offer medical opinions. Nurse Davis may testify about her job duties,

experience, and any performance in this case.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 4 To Admit Limited Evidence Showing: (1)

Inadequate Access to Medical Treatment in the California Prison System During the

Events of this Case; and (2) Dr. Parsons’ Knowledge of Such Inadequacies.

Ruling: DENIED. 

The three documents that Plaintiff seeks to admit through this motion are 1) a document

titled “Medical Services Delivery Plan. Report to the Legislature” and dated July 31, 2002; 2) a

document titled “Stipulation for Injunctive Relief” filed in the case Plata v. Schwarzenegger, C01-1351 TEH (N. D. Cal. February 12, 2002); and 3) a document titled “Locked Out: California

Prisoners Face Poor Health Care, Indifference and Neglect Despite their Legal Right to Medical

Treatment,” which is a newspaper article from the San Diego Union Tribune dated June 29,

2002. These documents may not be admitted into evidence, as they are unduly prejudicial

pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403. The documents may be used or referenced on the cross2

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 193 Filed 02/08/10 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

examination of Dr. Parsons only if the proper foundation is laid.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 193 Filed 02/08/10 Page 3 of 3