(PC) Venable v. Patel ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELVIS VENABLE, Case No. 1:17-cv-01519-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE 13 v. (ECF No. 80) 14 PATEL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Elvis Venable (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 19 Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Patel for nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages 20 resulting from Defendant Patel’s alleged violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. All 21 parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 44.) This action is currently 22 set for jury trial to begin on April 20, 2022.1 23 On January 4, 2022, Defendant filed motions in limine. (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff did not 24 file motions in limine or an opposition to Defendant’s motions in limine. By minute order issued 25 January 21, 2022, defense counsel was directed to provide Plaintiff with a courtesy copy of the 26 motions in limine in advance of the motion in limine hearing. (ECF No. 83.) 27 28 1 The Court issued a separate order continuing the trial date in this matter. 1 Defendant’s motions were heard before the undersigned during a Zoom video conference 2 hearing on January 31, 2022. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff appeared by video on his own behalf, and 3 attorneys Robert M. Perkins, Lucia Q. Li, and Sharon A. Garske appeared by video on behalf of 4 Defendant. 5 As discussed on the record, Plaintiff received a copy of Defendant’s motions in limine, 6 pursuant to the Court’s minute order, on January 27, 2022. Plaintiff stated on the record that he 7 had had an opportunity to read the motions in limine and did not intend to submit an opposition in 8 writing. Plaintiff did not object to the motions in most part, and his limited objections are 9 preserved on the record. Further, argument was heard from all parties on the motions at the 10 hearing. The motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 11 I. Motions in Limine 12 A. Standard 13 A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before 14 it is actually introduced at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). “[A] 15 motion in limine is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and 16 evenhanded management of the trial proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 17 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve evidentiary 18 disputes before trial and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in front of the 19 jury, thereby relieving the trial judge from the formidable task of neutralizing the taint of 20 prejudicial evidence. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004–05 (9th Cir. 2003). 21 Motions in limine that exclude broad categories of evidence are disfavored and such 22 issues are better dealt with during trial as the admissibility of evidence arises. See, e.g., Brown v. 23 Kavanaugh, No. 1:08–CV–01764–LJO, 2013 WL 1124301, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013) 24 (citing Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975); see also In 25 re Homestore.com Inc., No. CV 01–11115 RSWL CWX, 2011 WL 291176, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26 25, 2011) (holding that motions in limine should “rarely seek to exclude broad categories of 27 evidence, as the court is almost always better situated to rule on evidentiary issues in their factual 28 context during trial”); see cf. Oracle Am. Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10–03561 WHA, 2012 WL 1 1189898, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012) (concluding that “a broad categorical exclusion” was 2 unwarranted). Additionally, some evidentiary issues are not accurately and efficiently evaluated 3 by the trial judge in a motion in limine, and it is necessary to defer ruling until during trial when 4 the trial judge can better estimate the impact of the evidence on the jury. Jonasson, 115 F.3d at 5 440. 6 B. Defendant’s Motions in Limine 7 For the reasons discussed at the hearing, the Court rules on each of Defendant’s motions 8 in limine as indicated below:2 9 I.B. Evidence of Plaintiff’s Felony Conviction 10 Defendant’s motion to introduce evidence of Plaintiff’s felony conviction under Federal 11 Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1), limited to references to the fact of Plaintiff’s conviction and that he is 12 serving a sentence related to that conviction, is HELD IN ABEYANCE. 13 As discussed on the record, Plaintiff argues that he has successfully challenged the 14 referenced conviction through the appellate process in case number TA039602 in Los Angeles 15 Superior Court. A ruling on Defendant’s motion in limine is therefore held in abeyance pending 16 supplemental briefing to address the validity of this conviction. Defendant shall submit 17 supplemental briefing on or before February 28, 2022. Plaintiff may file an opposition or other 18 response to Defendant’s supplemental brief on or before March 18, 2022. No reply briefs will be 19 filed. 20 I.C. Plaintiff’s Conviction for False Representation of Identity to a Peace 21 Officer as a Conviction Involving Dishonesty 22 Defendant’s motion to introduce evidence of Plaintiff’s conviction for false representation 23 of identity to a peace officer in violation of Penal Code section 148.9, pursuant to Federal Rule of 24 Evidence 609(a)(2), is GRANTED. 25 /// 26 27 2 The Court follows the paragraph numbering used in Defendant’s motions in limine. (ECF No. 80-3, pp. 3–12.) The motions set forth in the instant order contain all motions in limine submitted 28 by Defendant. There is no motion at I.A. 1 II. Impeachment Evidence of Specific Instances of Untruthfulness 2 Defendant’s motion to confront Plaintiff with his previous instances of untruthfulness to 3 CDCR staff because it is relevant and probative for Plaintiff’s character for untruthfulness, 4 pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), is GRANTED. 5 III. Evidence of Plaintiff’s Bias and Motive to Lie 6 Defendant’s motion to admit evidence that Plaintiff previously sued Defendant for money 7 damages because it shows bias and motive to lie, and its tendency to prove Plaintiff’s ulterior 8 motive outweighs its prejudicial impact, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b), is 9 GRANTED. 10 As discussed on the record, Defendant should include a proposed limiting instruction to 11 the jury regarding this evidence. 12 IV. Prohibition of Plaintiff Introducing Any Evidence About His Excluded 13 Witnesses 14 Defendant’s motion to prohibit Plaintiff from offering any evidence, or from making any 15 statement in the presence of the jury, about any incidents between Defendant and inmates 16 Rochelle Randolph and Martin Bibbs, is GRANTED. 17 V. Exclusion of Evidence that the State May Pay Any Judgment Against 18 Defendant 19 Defendant’s motion to preclude evidence of Defendant’s indemnification by the State or 20 CDCR, is GRANTED. 21 VI. Exclusion of Evidence and Argument Regarding Settlement 22 Defendant’s motion to exclude any evidence or argument of settlement offers and 23 statements made during settlement discussions, is GRANTED. 24 VII. Exclusion of Evidence that Defendant Violated the California Penal 25 Code or Committed a Criminal Act 26 Defendant’s motion to exclude any evidence, argument, or inference that Defendant 27 violated any section of the Penal Code, and to prohibit any mention of criminal conduct or the 28 penal code to avoid confusion of issues and unfair prejudice against Defendant, is GRANTED. 1 VIII. Exclusion of Opinion Testimony from Plaintiff about His Own Medical 2 Records or Medical Conditions 3 Defendant’s motion to exclude testimony from Plaintiff on any medical diagnosis, 4 opinion, prognosis, or the medical causation of any condition, or the quality of medical care 5 provided by Defendant, is GRANTED. 6 As discussed on the record, Plaintiff may testify to that which he has personal knowledge, 7 including how he felt and what he saw or heard. 8 II. Order 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Defendant’s motions in limine, (ECF No. 80), are HELD IN ABEYANCE and 11 GRANTED, as follows: 12 a. Defendant’s motion in limine I.B., (ECF No. 80-3, pp. 3–4), is HELD IN 13 ABEYANCE, as discussed on the record; 14 b. Defendant’s remaining motions in limine, I.C. through VIII, (ECF No. 80-3, pp. 15 4–12), are GRANTED, as discussed on the record; 16 2. Defendant shall submit supplemental briefing regarding motion in limine I.B. on or before 17 February 28, 2022; 18 3. Plaintiff may file an opposition or other response to Defendant’s supplemental brief on or 19 before March 18, 2022; and 20 4. No reply briefs shall be filed. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: January 31, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28