Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00992/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00992-19/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pacific Marine Center, Inc.
Plaintiff
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
Defendant
Sona Vartanian
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

(Doc. Nos. 153, 154)

On September 27, 2016, defendant filed three motions in limine in connection with the 

upcoming trial on the remaining claims in this action. (Doc. Nos. 152, 153, 154.) Plaintiff 

opposed the motions in limine on October 4, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 162, 163, 164.) The court held a 

hearing on the first motion in limine, which concerned potential bifurcation of the trial, on 

October 12, 2016 and denied that motion on the record. The court now denies the remaining two 

motions in limine, concluding that neither is suitable for determination in advance of trial.

Defendant’s second motion in limine seeks to exclude on relevancy grounds testimony 

from the Person Most Knowledgeable from the Department of Motor Vehicles, whom defendant 

anticipates will testify on the issue of whether the DMV is a law enforcement agency. (Doc. No. 

153.) While the ultimate relevancy of this anticipated testimony is far from clear to the court, the 

relevancy standard is a low bar, as the evidence need only have “any tendency” to make a fact of 

consequence more or less probable in order to be deemed relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Without 

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 170 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 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

2

knowing specifically what the testimony will be, this matter is not suitable to a decision prior to 

trial. Similarly, trial testimony from Dr. Reicherter—the subject of defendant’s third motion in 

limine—may conceivably be relevant to the court in deciding whether Sona Vartanian acted as 

one might expect following a theft. (See Doc. No. 154.) Before hearing the specific questions to 

be asked of this witness, and perhaps the testimony in response to those questions, the court is not 

capable of ruling on the relevance of the testimony in advance of trial. Of course, relevancy 

objections to any particular testimony may still be raised at trial.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motions in limine (Doc. Nos. 153, 154) are denied without prejudice to 

objections to specific testimony being raised at trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 170 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 2