Ochoa v. County of Kern ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEJANDRO OCHOA, an individual, No. 1:18-cv-01599-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE 13 v. (Doc. 97) 14 COUNTY OF KERN, a municipal entity; DEPUTY BROCK (Badge No. 201765), an 15 individual; DEPUTY ANDREW BASSETT (Badge No. 202312), an 16 individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 This case concerns Alejandro Ochoa’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, battery under 21 California law, and negligence under California law arising out of an incident between Plaintiff 22 and Deputies Brock and Bassett while acting under color of state law and in the course and scope 23 of employment with Defendant County of Kern. (Doc. 1.) In what Defendants contend was an 24 attempt to execute an arrest warrant, Plaintiff alleges Deputies Brock and Bassett negligently 25 assessed the circumstances presented to them and subjected Plaintiff to unreasonable and 26 excessive force, causing him severe injuries. (Id.) 27 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion in limine. (Doc. 97.) The Court also finds this 28 matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and General 1 Order 618. 2 I. Legal Standards Governing Motions in Limine 3 “Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the 4 practice has developed pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority to manage the course of 5 trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984). The Ninth Circuit explained motions in 6 limine allow parties to resolve evidentiary disputes ahead of trial “before attempted use of the 7 evidence before the jury.” United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2009). 8 Importantly, motions in limine seeking the exclusion of broad categories of evidence are 9 disfavored. See Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). 10 The Court “is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of 11 evidence.” Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1218 (D. Kan. 2007). The Sixth Circuit 12 explained, “[A] better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence as they arise 13 [in trial]” as opposed to ruling on a motion in limine. Sperberg, 519 F.2d at 712. Nevertheless, 14 motions in limine are “an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and 15 evenhanded management of the trial proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family 16 Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). 17 “[A] motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence,” 18 C & E Services, Inc. v. Ashland Inc., 539 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323 (D. D.C. 2008), because that is the 19 province of the jury. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). The 20 Court will bar use of the evidence in question only if the moving party establishes that the 21 evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Jonasson, 115 F. 3d at 440. 22 For example, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, any evidence that is not relevant is not 23 admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. To determine that evidence is relevant, the Court must find “(a) it 24 has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and 25 (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Nevertheless, 26 relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the 27 danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the 28 jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 1 403. 2 The rulings on the motions in limine made below do not preclude either party from raising 3 the admissibility of the evidence discussed herein, if the evidence adduced at trial demonstrates a 4 change of circumstances that would make the evidence admissible, such as for impeachment or if 5 the opponent opens the door to allow for its admissibility. In this event, the proponent of the 6 evidence SHALL raise the issue with the Court outside the presence of the jury. Finally, the 7 rulings made here are binding on all parties and their witnesses and not merely on the moving 8 party. 9 II. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude or Limit Evidence of Plaintiff’s Recent 10 Arrests/Criminal Dispositions (Doc. 97) 11 Plaintiff seeks to exclude or limit evidence of his “criminal convictions, charges, and 12 arrests, unrelated law enforcement contacts, and other ‘bad acts’” pursuant to Federal Rules of 13 Evidence 402, 403, 404, and 609. (Doc. 97 at 2, 3.) Plaintiff argues his criminal history and other 14 “bad acts” are irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. (Id. at 4-6.) The evidence Plaintiff seeks to 15 exclude includes, “but may not be limited to”: 16 • Possession of Controlled Substance (Misdemeanor – filed 8/11/2022); and 17 • Infliction of Firearm by a Felon (Felony – filed 09/20/2022). 18 (Id. at 3.) 19 In its prior order, the Court reserved ruling on evidence of Plaintiff’s criminal history and 20 prior “bad acts” occurring prior to the date of the incident. (Doc. 96 at 4.) More precisely, the 21 Court explained that “[t]o the extent that the defense establishes specific foundation in advance of 22 offering evidence about these prior acts, which demonstrates that this information impacted their 23 relevant conduct, the evidence, in general, may be admitted.” (Id., footnote omitted.) Moreover, 24 The Court also held that if Plaintiff chooses to testify at trial, pursuant to Rule 609 and subject to 25 Rule 403, felony convictions less than ten years old may be admissible for impeachment purposes 26 only. (Id. at 5.) 27 However, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion, instead conceding that “any 28 evidence of Plaintiff’s criminal history which occurred subsequent to January 27, 2018 is not 1 | relevant, and should be excluded.” (Doc. 99 at 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 97) is 2 | GRANTED in PART and RESERVED in PART. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ October 14, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28