United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
MOISES E. PONCE ALVAREZ, Plaintiff,
KING COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Moises E. Ponce
Alvarez's Motions in Limine, (Dkt. # 42) and Defendant
King County's Motions in Limine, (Dkt. # 41). Having
considered the briefs submitted by the parties, relevant
portions of the record, and the applicable law, the Court
GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties' motions.
alleges that the Defendants, all King County Sheriff's
deputies, used excessive force while arresting him on May 21,
2014, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Dkt. # 1 at ¶¶ 5.1-5.6; 6.1-6.6. Discovery has
closed, the dispositive motions deadline has passed, and
trial is set for July 31, 2017.
may file motions in limine before or during trial “to
exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence
is actually offered.” Luce v. United States,
469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). To resolve such motions, the
Court is guided by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 401 and
403. Specifically, the Court considers whether evidence
“has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable
than it would be without the evidence, ” and whether
“the fact is of consequence in determining the
action.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. But the Court may exclude
relevant evidence if “its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a 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.
MUTUALLY AGREED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
parties will not offer expert opinions that were not
disclosed during discovery or that are otherwise improper.
Defendants will not use or offer any documents regarding the
Plaintiff that were not produced by the Defendants during
parties will not present exhibits that were not disclosed
prior to trial in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
parties will not reference any settlement or settlement
communications and will redact any records that reflect
Defendants will not present any evidence or make any
references to any instances where Plaintiff was investigated,
charged or convicted of a crime that is unrelated to the
police conduct at issue in this case.
Defendants will not refer to any potential impact the verdict
may have on them or on the public's safety.
Defendants will not present evidence regarding the
“good character” or other “good” acts
of the Defendants or any witnesses, unless the Plaintiff
“opens the door” by placing the Defendants'
or other witnesses' character at issue.
Defendants will not reference Plaintiff's immigration
parties agree not to reference these motions in limine or any
evidence that has been excluded.
Defendants will not make any claim or suggestion that they
will be personally liable for compensatory or punitive
parties agree not to reference the Defendants' financial
status, insurance or lack thereof.
Plaintiff will not reference unrelated internal
investigations or disciplinary actions involving Deputies
Buchan, Bertaina, Hennessy or Price, unless Defendants
“open the door” to impeachment.
parties agree not to refer to the “golden rule”
or similar themes, whether directly or indirectly. This
includes any argument that asks jurors to place themselves in
the position of either party or to grant relief that they
would feel entitled to if they were in the same position.
Defendants will not reference Plaintiff's past drug or
alcohol use unless Plaintiff “opens the door.”
15. Defendants will not reference or appeal ...