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

ORDER 

PAGE – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

OMAR WILEY,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

KYLE BURGESS, et al.,

 Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1948RSM

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motions in Limine. (Dkt. #102). 

Defendants oppose this motion. (Dkts. #110).

Having reviewed plaintiff’s motion, defendants’ response, plaintiff’s reply, and the

remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence (Dkt. #102) is GRANTED IN PART

and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Exclusion of Plaintiff’s Driving Record: Plaintiff’s motion is STRICKEN as

premature. The Court reserves ruling on this evidence if and when it arises during trial. 

b. Reference, Mention or Implication that a Judgment Would be Paid by or

Through Assets or Income of the Defendant Troopers Personally, or That They Lack Insurance

Case 2:05-cv-01948-RSM Document 117 Filed 10/01/07 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

ORDER 

PAGE – 2

or Indemnification: Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

Plaintiff argues that evidence of defendants’ financial condition is inadmissible to the issue of

liability. It is well established that a “liable party’s ability to pay should not influence the amount

of the assessment.” U.S. v. Charles George Trucking, Inc., 34 F.3d 1081, 1087 (1st Cir. 1994);

see also Vasbinder v. Ambach, 926 F.2d 1333, 1344 (2nd Cir. 1991) (finding that a defendant’s

ability to pay is normally a class of evidence that is not admissible during the liability and

compensatory damages phase of a case). Therefore the Court holds that defendants shall not

offer such evidence during the liability portion of the trial. However, evidence of a defendant’s

financial condition is relevant if a plaintiff makes a prima facie claim of punitive damages. See

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415, 439, 114 S.Ct. 2331, 2344 (1994). Here,

plaintiff seeks punitive damages. Therefore the Court agrees with defendants that if plaintiff

attempts to offer evidence of the defendants’ ability to pay, defendants will be entitled to rebut.

c. Defense Police Procedures Expert Robert M. Bragg, His Report and All

Documents Referenced in His Report: Plaintiffs argue that Robert Bragg’s testimony should be

excluded because he is only an instructor and has never been a patrol officer or made a traffic

stop. However, Mr. Bragg has substantial experience as “Program Manager of Physical Fitness

and Defense Tactics Instructor” and has “personally trained thousands of line officers across all

areas of the criminal justice arena.” (Dkt. #30, Attachment 2). Furthermore, defendants are

offering the testimony of Mr. Bragg to examine the defendants’ conduct based on the training

they received. Therefore Mr. Bragg’s testimony is relevant to whether defendants acted

reasonably under the Fourth Amendment’s “objectively reasonable” standard. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

d. Plaintiff’s Prior Arrests and Irrelevant Convictions: Plaintiff’s motion is

STRICKEN as premature. The Court reserves ruling on this evidence if and when it arises

Case 2:05-cv-01948-RSM Document 117 Filed 10/01/07 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

ORDER 

PAGE – 3

during trial. 

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this 1 day of October, 2007.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01948-RSM Document 117 Filed 10/01/07 Page 3 of 3