Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00644/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00644-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfred Campos
Defendant
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Fresno Police Department
Defendant
Ron Manning
Defendant
Angel Sandoval Rios
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

____________________________

Order Re Defendant’s Motions in Limine

Rosemary T. McGuire, Esq. Bar No. 172549

THE LAW FIRM OF

WEAKLEY, RATLIFF,

ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: (559) 221-5256

Facsimile: (559) 221-5262

Attorneys for Defendants ALFRED CAMPOS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL SANDOVAL RIOS, 

Plaintiff

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO, FRESNO POLICE

DEPARTMENT, ALFRED CAMPOS, RON

MANNING and DOES ONE (1) TO ONE

HUNDRED (100), inclusive, 

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 05-CV-00644 OWW SMS

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT, ALFRED

CAMPOS’S, MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Trial Date: December 5, 2006

On December 1, 2006, this matter came before the Court on the hearing of the motions

in limine submitted by the parties. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and heard oral

argument regarding Defendants’ Motions in Limine, the Court issues the following rulings:

1. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to preclude the testimony of any witnesses who

were not disclosed during discovery or provided as supplemental discovery in a timely fashion

is GRANTED as to witnesses Alfonso Torres and Daniel Diaz. As to witness, Margarita

Puentas, plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to make an offer of proof by close of business on Friday,

December 1, 2006, so that defense counsel has an opportunity to respond before Tuesday,

December 5, 2006. The matter is deferred until the Court has reviewed plaintiff’s offer of proof

and defendant’s response.

2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to preclude evidence of previous or pending

Case 1:05-cv-00644-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/06/06 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

____________________________

Order Re Defendant’s Motions in Limine 2

lawsuit(s) against the Defendant is GRANTED.

3. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 to preclude Plaintiff from presenting evidence or

inquiring into information included in the personnel record or Internal Affairs file of any peace

officer is GRANTED; except to the extent of the Court’s ruling on plaintiff’s offer of proof as to

the potential testimony of Margarita Puentas. Plaintiff’s offer of proof is to be submitted by

close of business on December 1, 2006.

4. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4 to preclude Plaintiff’s expert from giving opinions

regarding: factual determinations, credibility of witnesses, legal conclusions and/or past

experiences or claims of success is GRANTED.

5. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 5 to preclude Plaintiff’s expert from rendering

opinions in areas in which he lacks expertise is deferred until Mr. Stebens is voir dired outside

the presence of the jury to determine if he is qualified to testify in areas involving police

practices and procedures, including the use of the taser.

6. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 6 to exclude improper comments regarding damages

is GRANTED.

7. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 7 to exclude evidence of Defendant’s liability

insurance is GRANTED.

8. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 8 to preclude Plaintiff from soliciting evidence

regarding the Defendant’s indemnification by his employing entity is GRANTED.

9. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 9 to preclude non-expert witnesses from making

inflammatory remarks and rendering inadmissible opinions is GRANTED.

10. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 10 to exclude evidence from the prior criminal

proceedings is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00644-OWW -SMS Document 69 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 2