ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

1 80 M on t go m e ry S t re e t, S ui te 1 2 0 0

S a n F r a nci sc o , C al i fo r ni a 9 4 1 0 4

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

DEF MIL #1

3:17-CV-00600-LB

331962.1

DALE L. ALLEN, JR., State Bar No. 145279

dallen@aghwlaw.com

PHILIP J. DOWNS, JR., State Bar No. 302939

pdowns@aghwlaw.com

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 697-2000

Facsimile: (415) 813-2045

Attorneys for Defendants

COUNTY OF NAPA, COUNTY OF NAPA SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY TIMOTHY REID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENEE LEPAGE, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF NAPA; COUNTY OF 

NAPA SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; 

AND DEPUTY TIMOTHY REID,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00600-LB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO

EXCLUDE POST-INCIDENT CONDUCT

Hon. Laurel Beeler

Trial: October 15, 2019

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants County of Napa, Napa County Sheriff’s Office, and Deputy Tim Reid move in 

limine to exclude any questioning, argument, evidence, or attempts to introduce evidence alleging 

or regarding to any of Tim Reid’s post-incident conduct not related to the facts in this case.

II. BACKGROUND

Through meet and confer communication by email, Defendants asked Plaintiff to stipulate 

to bar evidence regarding any post-incident conduct by Deputy Reid – unrelated to the facts of 

this case – as (1) irrelevant, (2) unduly prejudicial, and (3) improper character evidence.

Prophylactically, Defendants raised the issue during meet-and-confer with opposing 

counsel and sought a stipulation as to its exclusion. Plaintiff only agreed not to question Deputy 

Reid about any post-incident allegations, investigations, or findings regarding excessive force or 

Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 114 Filed 09/06/19 Page 1 of 4
ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

1 80 M on t go m e ry S t re e t, S ui te 1 2 0 0

S a n F r a nci sc o , C al i fo r ni a 9 4 1 0 4

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

DEF MIL #1

3:17-CV-00600-LB

331962.1

other misconduct subject to Defendants confirming “in writing” Deputy Reid has not been the 

subject of any post-incident allegations, investigations, or findings since his deposition in May 

2018. Plaintiff also took the position that Plaintiff would introduce evidence of any post-incident 

allegations, investigations, or findings if any come to light between now and trial. 

There is no evidence of any post-incident conduct by Tim Reid in the record. Plaintiff has 

not identified any post-incident conduct which she would (attempt to) introduce. Defendants’

request is preventive, i.e., to avoid having to “un-ring” the bell at trial.

III. IN LIMINE MOTION TO EXCLUDE POST-INCIDENT CONDUCT

This motion in limine is made pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to manage the 

course of trials and F.R.E. 103(c). Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984). F.R.E. 103(c) 

dictates that “in jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to 

prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making 

statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury.” Further, 

“[p]reliminary questions concerning the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the 

court.” F.R.E. 104(a). Defendants request the Court bar evidence, questioning, argument, or 

rhetorical insinuation related to any post-incident conduct by, or allegation against Tim Reid: (1) 

unrelated post-incident events are not factually, or legally relevant under F.R.E. 402; (2) 

questioning, or argument, about unrelated after-the-fact incidents bears no probative value – it 

also lacks foundation – and risks undue prejudice under F.R.E. 403; and (3) this is the type of 

evidence barred under FRE 404.

Dated: August 20, 2019 ALLEN, GLAESSNER,

HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP

By:___Philip J. Downs, Jr._______________

DALE L. ALLEN, JR.

PHILIP J. DOWNS, JR.

Attorneys for Defendants

COUNTY OF NAPA, COUNTY OF NAPA 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY 

TIMOTHY REID

Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 114 Filed 09/06/19 Page 2 of 4
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

17-cv-00600-LB

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE 

POST-INCIDENT CONDUCT

MIRIAM KIM (State Bar No. 238230)

miriam.kim@mto.com

EMILY C. CURRAN-HUBERTY (State Bar No. 293065)

emily.curran-huberty@mto.com

SKYLAR D. BROOKS (State Bar No. 310707)

skylar.brooks@mto.com

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

560 Mission Street

Twenty-Seventh Floor

San Francisco, California 94105-2907

Telephone: (415) 512-4000

Facsimile: (415) 512-4077

Attorneys for Plaintiff

RENEE LEPAGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RENEE LEPAGE, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF NAPA; COUNTY OF NAPA 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; AND DEPUTY 

TIMOTHY REID,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00600-LB

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 

1 TO EXCLUDE POST-INCIDENT 

CONDUCT

Judge: Hon. Laurel Beeler

Date: September 26, 2019

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Crtrm.: B – 15th Floor

Trial Date.: October 15, 2019

Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 114 Filed 09/06/19 Page 3 of 4
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- 17-cv-00600-LB

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE 

POST-INCIDENT CONDUCT

I. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE

Plaintiff Renee LePage opposes Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 in part. Ms. LePage 

agrees that there is, at present, no evidence of any post-incident allegations, investigations, or 

findings against Defendant Deputy Timothy Reid regarding excessive force or other misconduct 

that would meet the standards for admissibility under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and Ms. 

LePage agrees not to seek to introduce any such evidence based on the facts as they now exist. If, 

however, new evidence regarding Deputy Reid’s “post-incident conduct” emerges between now 

and the conclusion of trial, Ms. LePage intends to reserve her right to seek to introduce any such 

new evidence if it otherwise meets the standards for relevance and admissibility.

Neither Ms. LePage nor Defendants can predict what events may occur between now and 

trial or what relevance any such events may have. However unlikely it may be that new, relevant 

evidence on this subject comes to light, Ms. LePage should not be required to abandon in advance 

her right to introduce otherwise admissible evidence that may emerge. 

Accordingly, Ms. LePage respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s MIL No. 1 

to the extent it would cover new evidence regarding Deputy Reid’s post-incident conduct that may 

emerge before or during trial. Ms. LePage does not otherwise oppose Defendants’ MIL No. 1.

DATED: September 3, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

MIRIAM KIM

EMILY C. CURRAN-HUBERTY

SKYLAR D. BROOKS

By: /s/ Emily C. Curran-Huberty

 Emily C. Curran-Huberty

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff RENEE LEPAGE

Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 114 Filed 09/06/19 Page 4 of 4