Ochoa v. Cnty. of Kern

628 F.Supp.3d 1006

Alejandro OCHOA, an individual, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, a municipal entity;Deputy Brock (Badge No. 201765), an individual;Deputy Andrew Bassett (Badge No. 202312),an individual; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-01599-JLT-BAK

United States District Court, E.D. California

Filed September 15, 2022

Signed September 14, 2022

Edward Lyman, Timaiah Smith, The Cochran Firm California, Los Angeles, CA, Brian T. Dunn, The Cochran Firm, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

Marshall Scott Fontes, Andrew C. Thomson, Office of County Counsel, County of Kern, Bakersfield, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Jennifer L. Thurston, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case concerns Alejandro Ochoa's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, battery under California law, and negligence under California law arising out of an incident between Plaintiff and Deputies Brock and Bassett while acting under color of state law and in the course and scope of employment with Defendant County of Kern. (Doc. 1.) In what Defendants contend was an attempt to execute an arrest warrant, Plaintiff alleges Deputies Brock and Bassett negligently assessed the circumstances presented to them and subjected Plaintiff to unreasonable and excessive force, causing him severe injuries. (Id.)

The parties have filed motions in limine for resolution before trial. (Docs. 60-71.) The Court finds the matters suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and General Order 618. Accordingly, the hearing set for October 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. before the undersigned is VACATED. For the reasons set forth below, the Court rules on the motions as follows.

I. Legal Standards Governing Motions in Limine

"Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984). The Ninth Circuit explained motions in limine allow parties to resolve evidentiary disputes ahead of trial "before attempted use of the evidence before the jury." United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2009).

Importantly, motions in limine seeking the exclusion of broad categories of evidence are disfavored. See Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). The Court "is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of evidence." Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1218 (D. Kan. 2007). The Sixth Circuit explained, "[A] better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence as they arise [in trial]" as opposed to ruling on a motion in limine. Sperberg, 519 F.2d at 712. Nevertheless, motions in limine are "an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded management of the trial proceedings." Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997).

"[A] motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence," C & E Services, Inc. v. Ashland Inc., 539 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323 (D. D.C. 2008), because that is the province of the jury. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). The Court will bar use of the evidence in question only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Jonasson, 115 F. 3d at 440.

For example, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, any evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. To determine that evidence is relevant, the Court must find "(a) it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Nevertheless, relevant evidence may be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403.

The rulings on the motions in limine made below do not preclude either party from raising the admissibility of the evidence discussed herein, if the evidence adduced at trial demonstrates a change of circumstances that would make the evidence admissible, such as for impeachment or if the opponent opens the door to allow for its admissibility. In this event, the proponent of the evidence SHALL raise the issue with the Court outside the presence of the jury. Finally, the rulings made here are binding on all parties and their witnesses and not merely on the moving party.

II. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine

A. No. 1: Motion to Exclude or Limit Evidence of Plaintiff's Criminal History and Other "Bad Acts" (Doc. 70)

Plaintiff seeks to exclude or limit evidence of his "convictions, charges, and arrests, unrelated law enforcement contacts, and other 'bad acts' pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, 404, and 609. (Doc. 70 at 3, 6-7.) Plaintiff argues his criminal history and other "bad acts" are irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. (Id. at 4-6.) The evidence Plaintiff seeks to exclude includes, "but is not limited to":

• False Imprisonment with Violence (Felony - 02/09/2018);

• Infliction of Corporal Injury on Spouse or Cohabitant (Felony - 04/08/2016);

• Taking Vehicle Without Owner's Consent (Felony - 01/04/2013);

• Infliction of Corporal Injury on Spouse or Cohabitant (Felony - 09/08/2012);

• Misdemeanor convictions;

• Any felony conviction over 10 years old; and

• Any arrests and/or criminal prosecutions not resulting in conviction.

(Id. at 3-4.) Defendants counter that the evidence is relevant and admissible under Rules 404(b) and 609. (See Doc. 77.)

1. Character evidence under 404(b)

Plaintiff contends the admission of evidence concerning his criminal history and other "bad acts" would "serve the purpose expressly prohibited by Fed. R. Evid. 404 because it would tend to indicate that Plaintiff had a criminal character and acted in conformity with that criminal character on the date of the incident." (Doc. 70 at 7.) Plaintiff asserts that "to the extent" Defendants attempt to introduce such evidence, the danger of unfair prejudice would substantially outweigh the probative value. (Id.)

Federal Rules of Evidence 404(a) provides "[e]vidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait." Fed. R. Evid. 404(a). More specifically, Rule 404(b) provides that "[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Rule 404(b) provides, however, that prior acts evidence "may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

Defendants argue Plaintiff's prior conduct is admissible to "evidence his motive, intent, opportunity, plan[,] knowledge[,] or lack of mistake." (Doc. 77 at 6.) However, Defendants fail to identify which crimes, wrongs, or acts they seek to introduce and which of the exceptions apply. On the other hand, the defense argues¹ that information about Plaintiff's criminal history was provided to the deputies by dispatch before they arrived at the scene and that this information bore on the action they took that day. To the extent that the defense establishes specific foundation in advance of offering evidence about these prior acts, which demonstrates that this information impacted their relevant conduct, the evidence, in general, may be admitted.² As such, the Court RESERVES ruling on this topic until a relevant time.

2. Impeachment evidence under 609

Though conceding that prior felony convictions are admissible for impeachment purposes under Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Plaintiff asserts that juvenile convictions, misdemeanor convictions, arrests not resulting in conviction, felony convictions more than ten years old, and offenses not involving proof of an admission of a dishonest act or false statement are not admissible impeachment evidence. (Doc. 70 at 6-7.)

Rule 609 provides that a testifying witness's character for truthfulness may be attacked by evidence of a criminal conviction for a crime that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and for any crime proving a dishonest act or false statement. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a). The rule limits the use of convictions where it has been more than 10 years since the conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Fed. R. Evid. 609(b). "[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, evidence of a prior conviction admitted for impeachment purposes may not include collateral details and circumstances attendant upon the conviction." United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1036 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting U.S. v. Rubio, 727 F.2d 786, 797 n.5 (9th Cir. 1983)). "Generally, only the prior conviction, its general nature, and punishment of felony range are fair game for testing the [witness's] credibility." United States v. Osazuwa, 564 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting U.S. v. Albers, 93 F.3d 1469, 1480 (10th Cir. 1996)) (quoted text in both decisions referred to "defendant's credibility" specifically).

However, in their supplemental brief, Defendants clarify that prior felony convictions are admissible under Rule 609. (Doc. 95 at 9.) Thus, the Court presumes Defendants will only seek to introduce prior felony convictions consistent with Rule 609, if at all. If Plaintiff chooses to testify at trial, subject to Rule 403, only prior felony convictions less than ten years old are admissible for impeachment...