1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT CLEVELAND, an individual, Case No.: 3:19-cv-00672-RBM-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF 13 v. ROBERT CLEVELAND’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE 14 THE BEHEMOTH, a California EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, 15 SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, LIFESTYLE, Defendants. COARSE LANGUAGE, AND/OR 16 PREDISPOSITION 17 18 [Doc. 68] 19 20 On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Cleveland (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion in Limine 21 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Sexual Behavior, Lifestyle, Coarse Language, and/or 22 Predisposition (“Motion”). (Doc. 68–1.) On March 18, 2022, Defendant The Behemoth 23 (“Defendant”) filed an opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”). (Doc. 83.) In the instant 24 Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court prohibit Defendant “from introducing evidence or 25 argument at trial regarding Plaintiff’s sexual behavior, lifestyle, use of coarse and expletive 26 language, and/or sexual predisposition” pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 403, 404, 27 and 412. (Doc. 68–1 at 5.) Defendant counters that the proffered evidence is not governed 28 1 || by Federal Rule of Evidence 412 and that it is relevant to whether Plaintiff was subjectively 2 || offended by the alleged harassment and sustained distress. (Doc. 83 at 2, 7.) 3 In reviewing the briefing, the Court finds that the categories of evidence Plaintiff 4 seeks to exclude are overly broad. See Venable v. Patel, No. 117CV0O1519BAMPC, 2022 5 || WL 298664, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Fed. 1, 2022) (“[m]Jotions in limine that exclude broad 6 ||categories of evidence are disfavored and such issues are better dealt with during trial as 7 ||the admissibility of evidence arises’’); see also Colton Crane Co., LLC vy. Terex Cranes 8 || Wilmington, Inc., No. CV 08-8525PSGPJWX, 2010 WL 2035800, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 9 || 19, 2010) (holding that “motions in limine should rarely seek to exclude broad categories 10 evidence, as the court is almost always better situated to rule on evidentiary issues in 11 || their factual context during trial’’). 12 Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's blanket request to exclude evidence 13 ||relating to Plaintiffs sexual behavior, lifestyle, use of coarse and expletive language, 14 |}and/or sexual predisposition and reserves further ruling on such matters at this 15 However, such evidence may be limited in scope and substance at trial. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || DATE: October 6, 2022 18 19