Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02154/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02154-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

JAMES SANFORD, )

) 2:04-cv-2154-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff, )

)

V. ) ORDER

)

DEL TACO, INC., d/b/a Del )

Taco #115; PHILIPPE DURAND )

GORRY, et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

)

Five motions in limine are pending; four made by

Plaintiff and one by Defendants.

Plaintiff’s first motion in limine is denied since it is

unclear whether the prior lawsuits are relevant. 

Plaintiff’s second in limine motion requests that

Defendants “be excluded from presenting any evidence or testimony

regarding any affirmative defenses not pled in their 

Answer . . . .” (Plaintiff’s Mot. in Limine No. 2 at 3.) This

motion is denied since the Final Pretrial Order controls the issues

to be tried.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 135 Filed 11/28/06 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

2

Plaintiff’s third in limine motion seeks to “limit[]

[Defendants’ expert witness’s testimony] to his report[,]” mentions

“legal conclusions,” and argues Defendants’ expert’s testimony

“should not include whether or not he could personally access any

portions of the Del Taco Restaurant.” (Plf.’s Mot. in Limine No. 3

at 2.) This motion is denied since it is not sufficiently

crystalized for an in limine ruling.

Plaintiff’s fourth motion in limine seeks to preclude

Defendants from introducing at trial the photographs Plaintiff’s

counsel received on October 6 or 7 of 2006. Plaintiff argues these

photographs “were never disclosed to [P]laintiff during the course

of litigation and prior to discovery cut-off.” (Plaintiff’s Mot.

in Limine No. 4 at 2.) Defendants counter that Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) authorizes them to produce these

photographs when they were produced since the photographs are

impeachment evidence. 

Defendants also argue that these photographs were taken

by their expert in September 2006 in response to Plaintiff’s

expert’s photographs, which were taken on July 24, 2006, and

attached to Plaintiff’s expert’s declaration, filed in support of

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue:

Because Plaintiff’s expert’s photographs

appeared for the first time after the discovery

and expert cutoffs, it was impossible for Del

Taco to produce the photographs . . . prior to

the discovery cutoff. Moreover, Del Taco

timely produced [the] photographs . . . to

Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to Rule 26(e) on

October 6, 2006, within one week of receiving

them from [their expert]. . . . These

photographs were taken in the exact locations

as [Plaintiff’s expert’s] photographs purely to

rebut Plaintiff’s post-discovery evidence.”

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 135 Filed 11/28/06 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

3

 Moreover, the rules of this Court

liberally permit rebuttal evidence at trial. 

For example, Local Rule 16-282(5) provides for

discussion at the pretrial conference of:

The filing of statements designating portions

of depositions, admissions and answers to

interrogatories that the respective parties

intend to offer at the trial (except portions

to be used only for impeachment or rebuttal).

 Likewise, this Court’s Final Pretrial

Order (“FPO”) provides that exhibits not

identified on the parties’ respective exhibit

lists may be admitted into evidence if “[t]he

party seeking to use the unlisted exhibit

demonstrates that the exhibit is being used to

rebut evidence which could not reasonably have

been anticiapted at the pretrial 

conference . . . .” []Here, there is no dispute

that Del Taco provided Plaintiff with [its

expert’s] photographs in a timely manner

pursuant to Rule 26(e) as well as included them

in its Exhibit List attached to the FPO.

(Defs.’ Opp’n to Plf.’s Mot. in Limine No. 4 at 2-3.) Plaintiff

has not rebutted Defendants’ arguments. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

fourth in limine motion is denied. 

Lastly, Defendants move in limine for “an order

precluding Plaintiff . . . from introducing evidence relating to

any visits (1) prior to the one-year statutory limitations period;

and (2) post-dating the filing of his Complaint against Del Taco

# 115 . . . .” (Defendants’ Mot. in Limine at 2.) This motion is

denied since it is unclear and has not been shown ripe for

decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 135 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 3