Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01202/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01202-24/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alice Rosas Aguilar
Plaintiff
County of Fresno
Defendant
Ernest Serrano
Defendant

Document Text:

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

James D. Weakley, Esq. Bar No. 082853

Valerie J. Velasco, Esq. Bar No. 267141

WEAKLEY, ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: (559) 221-5256

Facsimile: (559) 221-5262

Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF FRESNO and ERNEST SERRANO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALICE ROSAS AGUILAR, as successor

in interest to Sergio Rosas Aguilar;

ALICE ROSAS AGUILAR, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA,

a political subdivision of the State of

California; ERNEST SERRANO, an

individual,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01202-OWW-GSA

AMENDED ORDER ON DEFENDANTS,

ERNEST SERRANO AND COUNTY OF

FRESNO’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Complaint Filed: August 15, 2008

Trial Date: August 24, 2010

The motions in limine of Defendants, ERNEST SERRANO and COUNTY OF

FRESNO came on for hearing on August 3, 2010. The following rulings were made:

Motion in Limine No. 1, to preclude improper comments regarding damages was

unopposed by the Plaintiff and is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 2, to preclude evidence, argument or comment regarding liability

insurance of the defendants was unopposed by the Plaintiff and is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 3, to preclude evidence of indemnification of the defendant

officer was unopposed by the Plaintiff and is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 4, to exclude non-party witnesses from the courtroom is granted

except that once a witness has testified and there is no possibility of any party recalling that

____________________________

Amended Order on Defendants’

Motions in Limine

Case 1:08-cv-01202-OWW -GSA Document 158 Filed 08/20/10 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

witness, they may be permitted to remain in the courtroom.

Motion in Limine No. 5, to exclude witnesses or documents not previously identified by

a party, was unopposed by the Plaintiff and is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 6, to preclude the introduction of evidence of any lawsuits or

incidents where excessive force was claimed to have been used by any Fresno County Deputy

Sheriff is unopposed by the Plaintiff and is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 7, to exclude evidence protected by California Penal Code

Sections 832.7 -832.8, California Evidence Code Sections 1040 and 1043 as well as any other

privilege or right to privacy that any testifying Fresno County Deputy Sheriff may have is

granted. The Plaintiff may use the transcribed interview of ERNEST SERRANO for the

limited purpose of impeaching him with a prior inconsistent statement but cannot identify that

statement as a part of an Internal Affairs investigation or in any other way make reference to an

Internal Affairs investigation.

Motion in Limine No. 8, to preclude evidence, argument or comment that the

decedent’s DNA or fingerprints were not found on the knife is denied. 

Motion in Limine No. 9, to preclude evidence of hedonic damages is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 10 to preclude Plaintiff from recovering funeral and burial

expenses not paid by her is denied to the extent that if Plaintiff may lay a foundation that a loan

was made to her for such expenses those damages may be recoverable.

Motion in Limine No. 11 to preclude testimony that the decedent did not own or carry a

knife is denied, subject to the Plaintiff’s ability to lay an adequate foundation evidencing that

she had sufficient opportunities to observe his actions in this regard.

Motion in Limine No. 12 to preclude introduction of graphic autopsy photos that do not

assist the jury to understand the injuries that the decedent sustained is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 13(A) to preclude Plaintiff from introducing expert witness

testimony by persons not properly designated as an expert witness and to limit such testimony

to those opinions set forth in their Rule 26 report is granted. 

Motion in Limine No. 13(B) to preclude Plaintiff’s expert from offering testimony that

____________________________

Amended Order on Defendants’

Motions in Limine 2

Case 1:08-cv-01202-OWW -GSA Document 158 Filed 08/20/10 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

ERNEST SERRANO created the need for him to resort to the use of deadly force is granted. 

With regard to Pre-Use of Force Tactics, the Court will allow Mr. Clark to discuss

training that officers receive generally with regard to when to retreat, take cover or wait

for back up to arrive if he knows that such training was provided to Fresno County

Sheriff Deputies at the time that Deputy Serrano was trained.

Motion in Limine No. 13(C) to preclude Plaintiff’s expert from offering testimony that

amounts to an opinion as to the credibility of a witness is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 13(D) to preclude Plaintiff’s expert from offering legal

conclusions or any opinions as to whether a legal standard has been met by the evidence is

granted.

Motion in Limine No. 13(E) to preclude Plaintiff’s expert from offering testimony

ERNEST SERRANO was inadequately trained is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 13(F) to preclude Plaintiff’s expert from offering opinions that

were not rendered in his Rule 26 report and deposition is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 13(G) to preclude Plaintiff’s expert from referencing or referring

to protected materials that were disclosed to him in lawsuits other than this instant action is

granted.

Motion in Limine No. 13(H) to preclude Plaintiff’s expert from offering opinions that

are based on an improper basis, such as speculation, is granted.

Motion in Limine No. 13(I) to preclude Plaintiff’s expert from offering testimony that

less intrusive means of subduing the decedent were available to ERNEST SERRANO is

granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2010

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

____________________________

Amended Order on Defendants’

Motions in Limine 3

Case 1:08-cv-01202-OWW -GSA Document 158 Filed 08/20/10 Page 3 of 3