Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00986-10/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN GALVAN, et al., CASE NO. CV F 05-0986 LJO GSA

Plaintiff, TENTATIVE RULINGS ON PLAINTIFFS’

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

vs. (Docs. 67, 68.)

MODESTO POLICE OFFICER LYNDON

YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Due to illness, this Court VACATES the March 6, 2008 hearing on the motions of limine of

plaintiffs Susan Galvan (“Mrs. Ramon) and Ramon Galvan (“Mr. Ramon”) (collectively “plaintiffs”),

surviving parents of decedent Sammy Galvan (“decedent). This Court makes the following tentative

rulings on plaintiffs’ motions in limine and will entertain argument on March 10, 2008 at 9 a.m. on

disputes remaining following these rulings.

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine Regarding Broken Windshield Of Yesenia Perez: This

Court GRANTS the motion in limine in that the subject evidence to the motion is irrelevant.

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Photographs Of Decedent’s Yard: This

Court DENIES the motion in limine in that the subject evidence depicts relevant matters (vision,

perspective, spent rounds location, etc.) to corroborate or refute testimony.

3. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Domestic Violence Documents: This Court

DENIES the motion in limine to the extent that the documents address plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ relationship

Case 1:05-cv-00986-LJO-GSA Document 88 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 6
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

2

with decedent, decedent’s death, and plaintiffs’ alleged damages arising from loss of decedent’s

companionship and society.

4. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude September 12, 2001 Police Report: This

Court DENIES the motion in limine to the extent that the police report is relevant to plaintiffs’

relationship with the decedent and their alleged damages arising from loss of decedent’s companionship

and society. The police report is not remote in time.

5. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude January 14, 2002 Police Report: This Court

EXCLUDES the police report except portions, if any, which address plaintiffs’ statements or

involvement. 

6. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude March 22, 2002 Police Report And Related

Identified Documents: This Court EXCLUDES the police report and related identified documents,

except portions, if any, which address plaintiffs’ statements or involvement. 

7. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude June 18, 2002 Incident Report And Related

Identified Documents: This Court EXCLUDES the incident report and related identified documents,

except portions, if any, which address plaintiffs’ statements or involvement.

8. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude September 29, 2002 Police Report: This

Court EXCLUDES the police report, except portions, if any, which address plaintiffs’ statements or

involvement.

9. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude October 13, 2002 Incident History: This

Court EXCLUDES the incident history, except portions, if any, which address plaintiffs’ statements or

involvement.

10. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude October 18, 2003 Police Report And

Related Identified Documents: This Court EXCLUDES the police report and related identified

documents, except portions, if any, which address plaintiffs’ statements or involvement.

11. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Mrs. Galvan’s Interviews: This Court:

A. DENIES the motion in limine as to previous fights between Mr. Galvan and decedent in

that such evidence addresses alleged damages arising from loss of decedent’s

companionship and society;

Case 1:05-cv-00986-LJO-GSA Document 88 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 6
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

3

B. DENIES the motion in limine as to a smashed windshield in that such evidence addresses

alleged damages arising from loss of decedent’s companionship and society;

C. DENIES the motion in limine as to decedent’s suicidal tendencies in that such evidence

addresses alleged damages arising from loss of decedent’s companionship and society;

D. GRANTS the motion in limine as to conflicts between decedent and Yesenia Perez

except insofar as such evidence addresses plaintiffs or their statements;

E. GRANTS the motion in limine as to conflicts between decedent and peace officers

except insofar as such evidence addresses plaintiffs or their statements;

F. GRANTS the motion in limine as to Mrs. Galvan’s complaints against Yesenia Perez

except insofar as such evidence addresses plaintiffs or their statements;

G. DENIES as overbroad the motion in limine regarding incidents prior to August 22, 2004;

H. GRANTS the motion in limine regarding criminal or civil cases prior to August 22, 2004

except insofar as such evidence addresses plaintiffs or their statements;

I. DENIES as overbroad the motion in limine regarding Galvan family history prior to

August 22, 2004;

J. GRANTS the motion in limine as to the Galvan family’s relationship with Yesenia Perez

or her family members except insofar as such evidence addresses plaintiffs or their

statements;

K. GRANTS the motion in limine as to alleged threats except insofar as such evidence

relates to the relationship between plaintiffs and decedent.

12. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Mr. Galvan’s Interviews: This Court:

A. DENIES the motion in limine as to previous fights between Mr. Galvan and decedent in

that such evidence is relevant to the relationship between Mr. Galvan and decedent and

alleged damages arising from loss of decedent’s companionship and society;

B. DENIES the motion in limine as to the smashed windshield in that such evidence is

relevant to the relationship between Mr. Galvan and decedent and alleged damages

arising from loss of decedent’s companionship and society;

C. DENIES the motion in limine as to decedent’s suicidal tendencies in that such evidence

Case 1:05-cv-00986-LJO-GSA Document 88 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

addresses alleged damages arising from loss of decedent’s companionship and society;

D. GRANTS the motion in limine as to conflicts between decedent and Yesenia Perez

except insofar as such evidence addresses plaintiffs or their statements;

E. GRANTS the motion in limine as to conflicts between decedent and peace officers

except insofar as such evidence addresses plaintiffs or their statements;

F. GRANTS the motion in limine as to Mrs. Galvan’s complaints against Yesenia Perez

except insofar as such evidence addresses plaintiffs or their statements;

G. DENIES as overbroad the motion in limine regarding incidents prior to August 22, 2004;

H. GRANTS the motion in limine regarding criminal or civil cases prior to August 22, 2004

except insofar as evidence addresses plaintiffs or their statements;

I. DENIES as overbroad the motion in limine regarding Galvan family history prior to

August 22, 2004;

J. GRANTS the motion in limine as to the Galvan family’s relationship with Yesenia Perez

or her family members except insofar as such evidence addresses plaintiffs or their

statements;

K. GRANTS the motion in limine as to alleged threats except insofar as such evidence

relates to the relationship between plaintiffs and decedent;

L. DENIES without prejudice the motion in limine as to Mrs. Galvan’s intent to leave on

August 22, 2004 depending on foundational evidence;

M. DENIES without prejudice the motion in limine as to decedent’s statementsin that with

a proper foundation, such evidence will be admitted but without a proper foundation,

such evidence will be excluded;

N. DENIES the motion in limine as to Mr. Galvan’s statements in that they are relevant to

the relationship between Mr. Galvan and decedent and alleged damages arising from loss

of decedent’s companionship and society;

O. DENIES the motion in limine as to Mr. Galvan’s statements in that they are relevant to

the relationship between Mr. Galvan and decedent and alleged damages arising from loss

of decedent’s companionship and society;

Case 1:05-cv-00986-LJO-GSA Document 88 Filed 03/05/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

P. GRANTS themotion in limine as to drug and/or alcohol use subject to defense argument;

Q. DENIES without prejudice the motion in limine ast to Mr. Galvan’s broken window

statements in that with a proper foundation, such evidence will be admitted but without

a proper foundation, such evidence will be excluded;

R. DENIES as too limited the motion in limine as Mr. Galvan’s statements regarding abuse

of plaintiffs;

S. DENIES the motion in limine as to Mr. Galvan’s lost job statements in that such

evidence is relevant to the relationship between Mr. Galvan and decedent and alleged

damages arising from loss of decedent’s companionship and society;

T. DENIES as too broad the motion in limine as to statements regarding police contact prior

to August 22, 2004;

U. RESERVES ruling on the motion in limine regarding gang affiliation subject to defense

counsel’s comments; and

V. DENIES without prejudice the motion in limine as to blame statements in that with a

proper foundation, such evidence will be admitted but without a proper foundation, such

evidence will be excluded.

13. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exlude Yesenia Perez Interviews: This Court has

ruled above on the matters subject to this motion in limine.

14. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Decedent’s Tatoos: This Court

EXCLUDES evidence of decedent’s tatoos except to the extent such evidence is necessary to show

location of wounds and similar matters.

15. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Testimony Regarding Subject Matter Of

Plaintiffs’ Motions In Limine Nos. 1-14: This Court DENIES the motion in limine as redundant.

16. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Regarding David Dusenbury:

This Court DENIES the motion in limine as moot based on defense counsel’s representations.

17. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Doorway Replication Evidence:This Court

RESERVES ruling on the motion in limine subject to defense counsel’s comments in that the parties fail

to provide sufficient specifics to address the motion in limine.

Case 1:05-cv-00986-LJO-GSA Document 88 Filed 03/05/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

18. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Unblemished Records Of

Department Police Officers: This Court EXLUDES evidence of unblemished records of Department

police officers unless plaintiffs put the matter in issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00986-LJO-GSA Document 88 Filed 03/05/08 Page 6 of 6