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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH C. WEAVER and No. 2:04-cv-2678-MCE-DAD

SHAWN C. WEAVER,

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

THE EL DORADO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SHERIFF

JEFF NEVES; KEVIN PEBLEY;

STEVEN FULTON; and DOES 1

through 20, Inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On May 12, 2206, counsel for Defendants Kevin Pebley and

Steven Fulton filed so-called “Dispositive Motions” in this

manner designed to exclude certain testimony from being

introduced at trial. The Court’s Pretrial (Status) Scheduling

Order (“PTSO”), filed July 11, 2005, dictates that all

“dispositive” motions “shall be heard no later than June 12,

2006.” (PTSO, 4:15-17). 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02678-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 06/01/06 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

While the motions presently before the Court are set for hearing

on June 19, 2006, after that deadline, defense counsel asserts

that the PTSO should be modified in order to treat said motions

as having been timely made. Defense attorney Gumpert argues

that the motions were noticed far enough in advance of May 12,

2006 so as to have properly been heard at that time, had June 12,

2006 been an available motion date on the Court’s calendar, which

it is not.

Examination of the substance of the defense motions,

however, reveal that they are not “dispositive” motions subject

to the June 12, 2006 cutoff date in any event. A dispositive

motion, by definition, is one that terminates claims made by a

party, either in whole or in part. Motions requesting either

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, or summary

judgment under Rule 56, for example, are dispositive motions

since, if granted, they may conclude all or part of a lawsuit. 

Here, on the other hand, defense counsel asks the court “to issue

orders precluding any expert witnesses from testifying on behalf

of Plaintiffs and preventing Plaintiffs from testifying as to

medical conditions, diagnoses, prognoses, causation or the

reasonableness of the costs of medical care.” Defs.’ Mot., 10:5-

9. Alternatively, Defendants ask that the Court preclude

“Plaintiffs’ physicians from testifying except as to their

personal observations as percipient witnesses.” Id., 10:10-12. 

By requesting exclusion of certain evidence prior to trial,

Defendants’ motions must properly be considered as in limine

requests rather than dispositive motions.

///

Case 2:04-cv-02678-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 06/01/06 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

In Limine Motions will be scheduled for hearing in

accordance with the terms of the Final Pretrial Order, which will

be issued following the Final Pretrial Conference in this matter

now set for September 18, 2006. Such motions are normally heard

one day prior to commencement of trial, presently set for October

18, 2006. The Court will not entertain in limine motions prior

to that time, and the present motions are accordingly DENIED as

premature at this time, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02678-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 06/01/06 Page 3 of 3