Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03817/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03817-15/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SHANNON CAMPBELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MILPITAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03817-BLF 

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendants have submitted four Motions in Limine. Plaintiffs have not submitted any 

Motions in Limine, nor have they submitted written opposition to Defendants’ motions prior to the 

expiration of the time allowed. In accordance with the Court’s Standing Order Re Final Pre-Trial 

Conference, the Motions in Limine are submitted without oral argument.

 I. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE NOT 

RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FOR FALSE ARREST

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendants seek an exclusion order to prevent Plaintiffs from attempting to admit evidence 

that is contrary to this Court’s order addressing the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment 

(“Summary Judgment Order”). See Summary Judgment Order, ECF 99. Defendants correctly 

state that the only remaining issue for trial is the amount of Plaintiffs’ damages resulting from 

their Third Cause of Action for False Arrest and False Imprisonment. See Summary Judgment 

Order at 29, 31, ECF 99. Only evidence relevant to that claim will be admitted. Absent any 

specific offer of evidence by Plaintiffs, the court cannot make specific evidentiary rulings at this 

juncture.

Case 5:13-cv-03817-BLF Document 118 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants address two anticipated issues. First, they seek to exclude evidence contrary to

the Court’s statements in the Summary Judgment Order that Defendants did not physically 

restrain, threaten, or interview the Plaintiffs; that Plaintiffs were not handcuffed or taken to 

another location; and that Plaintiffs were allowed to walk around, talk to their friends, make 

telephone calls, and videotape Defendants. See Summary Judgment Order at 21, 26. Although the 

Court did not resolve any factual disputes in ruling on the summary judgment motions, Defendants 

properly identified a matter upon which there was no disputed evidence. Thus, Plaintiffs may not 

offer evidence contrary to the above referenced circumstances of their detention.

The second issue identified by Defendants is their concern that Plaintiffs will offer 

evidence that their prolonged detention deprived them of the opportunity to travel to the San Jose 

Arena to videotape the circus animals in violation of their First Amendment rights. Nothing in the 

Summary Judgment Order would prevent Plaintiffs from describing the lost opportunity to film 

the circus animals as part of the impact on them of the detention. However, the Court concluded 

that there was no evidence in the record to support Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendants violated 

their First Amendment rights. See Summary Judgment Order at 15. Thus, Plaintiff will be 

precluded from offering evidence or argument regarding violation of their First Amendment 

rights.

Defendants further request that Plaintiffs’ counsel inform all witnesses of this order. The 

Court agrees and so advises all counsel – for both Plaintiffs and Defendants – that they are 

responsible for admonishing their witnesses to refrain from testimony that would violate the 

Court’s orders in this case.

 II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO LIMIT PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS 

FOR DAMAGES TO THE PERIOD OF UNLAWFUL DETENTION BY 

DEFENDANTS

DENIED.

Based on Defendants’ motion, it appears that Defendants may have misinterpreted the 

basis for the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action for False Arrest and False 

Imprisonment. Defendants interpret the Summary Judgement Order as limiting the detention time 

Case 5:13-cv-03817-BLF Document 118 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to forty minutes. That is an incorrect reading of the order. In ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment, the Court was compelled to resolve all factual disputes in Defendants’ favor 

and to draw all reasonable inferences on their behalf. See Summary Judgment Order at 26. 

Having done so, the Court determined that “[e]ven reduced to its minimum, Plaintiffs’ detention 

lasted forty minutes.” Id. The actual length of the detention was a disputed fact at summary 

judgment, and continues to be so for trial. Plaintiffs are allowed to offer evidence as to the full 

length of the unlawful detention, including the time during which the CHP was on the scene. It 

will be left to the jury to determine whether the CHP took control of the detention, thus relieving 

Defendants from responsibility.

Defendants are correct, however, that the Court did rule that the initial stop was lawful. 

See Summary Judgment Order at 16-18. Plaintiffs may not offer evidence to the contrary. 

Both Plaintiffs and Defendants may offer evidence as to the time the detention commenced 

and the time it terminated, along with evidence regarding the point at which the detention became 

so prolonged as to become an unlawful arrest giving rise to damages.

 III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE 

GATHERED BY PLAINTIFFS IN COLLATERAL DISCOVERY AND NOT 

PROPERLY PRODUCED DURING THE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY 

PROCEEDINGS

DEFERRED. 

Defendants seek to exclude evidence not properly produced during discovery. They 

complain that Plaintiffs violated the Court’s Scheduling Order by deposing witnesses after the 

discovery cut-off date under the guise of other litigation and that such evidence was not properly 

disclosed pursuant to Plaintiffs’ obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and (e). 

Defendants identify depositions of David Bailey and CHP Sergeant Walling as examples of 

discovery abuses. As to those witnesses, however, it appears that Defendants have obtained 

copies of the depositions. Defendants’ concern pertains to other evidence unknown to them.

Litigants have a continuing obligation to disclose the names of witnesses and copies of 

documents they may use to support their claims or defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(ii), 

Case 5:13-cv-03817-BLF Document 118 Filed 05/20/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(e). Rule 37 expressly provides that if a party fails to provide information required under Rule 26, 

“the party is not allowed to use that information or witness . . . at a trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 

However, the Court cannot rule on Defendants’ motion at this time because Plaintiffs have not 

proffered any offending evidence. The Court defers ruling on this motion until such time as 

Defendants advise the Court of such impermissible evidence.

 IV. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE 

MURDER OF PLAINTIFF CAMPBELL’S SISTER

GRANTED.

 Defendants seek to exclude evidence of the 1995 murder of Plaintiff Campbell’s sister in 

relation to Ms. Campbell’s testimony regarding emotional distress damages sought in this action. 

Defendants argue that such evidence is not relevant to any issue before the jury. The Court 

agrees. Moreover, even if there were some tangential relevance, evidence of such an emotional, 

deeply sad, and tragic nature would have a far greater prejudicial effect on the jury than any 

possible probative value. Thus the evidence also is subject to exclusion under Federal Rule of 

Evidence 403.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03817-BLF Document 118 Filed 05/20/15 Page 4 of 4