Taylor v. Pima, County of et al
| Louis Taylor |
| Pima, County of and Tucson, City of |
| 4:2015cv00152 |
| April 13, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Tucson Division Office |
| Pima |
| Rosemary Marquez |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
1136
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED, Plaintiff's 911 Motion in Limine re: Judicial Estoppel is denied as moot, with leave for the parties to re-raise the issue at trial if necessary. Plaintiff's 916 Motion in Limine re: Executive Session Privilege is denied as moot. Plaintiff's 942 Motion in Limine re: Prior Testimony is denied, as set forth above. Plaintiff's 943 Motion in Limine re: Former County Attorney Witnesses is partially granted and partially denied, as set forth above. Pla intiff's 944 Motion in Limine re: Unklesbay and Acosta is denied as moot, with leave for the parties to re-raise the issue at trial if necessary. Plaintiff's 945 Motion in Limine re: Unklesbay, Acosta and LaWall is denied as moot, with leave for the parties to re-raise the issue at trial if necessary. Plaintiff's 946 Motion in Limine re: Taylors Statements is denied. Plaintiff's 947 Motion in Limine re: Bad Acts is denied without prejudice to the extent it seeks a rul ing in limine. The parties may re-raise the issues addressed in the Motion at trial. Plaintiff's 948 Motion in Limine re: Opinions of Tommy Tunson is denied. City of Tucson's 938 Motion in Limine No. 1 re: Untimely Disclosed Witnesses a nd Documents is denied, as set forth above. City of Tucson's 939 Motion in Limine No. 2 re: Robert Jacksons and Albert Jacksons Statements and Affidavits is denied. City of Tucson's 940 Motion in Limine No. 3 re: Rubin Salter is granted , with leave for Plaintiff to seek reconsideration of this ruling at trial, as set forth above. City of Tucson's 567 Motion in Limine No. 4 re: Andrew Pacheco (Doc. 968) is denied, as set forth above. The Courts prior ruling regarding the admi ssibility of Pachecos opinions is controlling. City of Tucson's 957 Motion in Limine No. 5 re: Dr. Thomas Tunson is partially granted and partially denied, as set forth above. City of Tucson's 941 Motion in Limine No. 6 re: Sherry Van C amp is granted, as set forth above, but the court reserves ruling on whether Van Camp may testify for a purpose other than proving the truth of statements made to her by Judge Brown. City of Tucson's 970 Motion in Limine No. 8 re: David Smith, 60 Minutes is partially granted and partially denied, as set forth above. City of Tucson's 951 Motion in Limine No. 9 re: Cyrillis Holmes' 2012 Deposition Testimony is denied. City of Tucson's 952 Motion in Limine No. 10 re: Charl ene Smith is partially granted and partially denied, as set forth above. City of Tucson's 960 Motion in Limine No. 11 re: Claus Bergman is partially granted and partially denied, as set forth above. City of Tucson's 962 Motion in Limine No. 12 re: Jack Frye is denied to the extent it seeks a ruling in limine, as set forth above. The Court defers until trial a definitive ruling on the admissibility of Fryes testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702. City of Tucson's 963 Motion in Limine No. 13 re: Robert Cannon is granted. City of Tucson's 954 Motion in Limine No. 14 re: Lesley Hoyt-Croft is taken under advisement, pending resolution of Plaintiff's Memorandum re: Equitable Estoppel. City of Tucson 's 965 Motion in Limine No. 15 re: Limitation on Issues and Evidence Based on Prior Rulings by the Court is denied to the extent it seeks a ruling in limine, as set forth above. City of Tucson's 967 Motion in Limine No. 16 re: Lindsay H erf is taken under advisement, pending resolution of Plaintiff's Memorandum re: Equitable Estoppel. Defendants' 956 Motion in Limine re: Compensatory Damages is taken under advisement, pending resolution of Plaintif's Memorandum re: Equitable Estoppel. Pima County's 958 Motion in Limine re: Dismissed Theories and Claims is partially denied, partially granted, and partially taken under advisement, as discussed above. Pima County's 969 Motion in Limine re: Taylors Cr iminal Attorneys is denied as moot, with leave for the parties to re-raise the issue at trial if necessary. Pima County's 971 Motion in Limine re: Arson Review Committee is denied as moot, with leave for the parties to re-raise the issue at tr ial if necessary. Pima County's 972 Motion in Limine re: Documentaries is partially granted and partially denied, as set forth above. Pima County's 973 Motion in Limine re: David Smith is partially granted and partially denied, as set f orth above. Pima County's 974 Motion in Limine re: Relationship Between Pima County and Pima County Attorney is granted, as set forth above. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to seek a negative inference instruction regarding communications bet ween Pima County's counsel of record in this matter and Conover that were withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Pima County's 975 Motion in Limine re: Unsworn Transcript is denied, with leave for Defendants to re-raise the i ssue of the admissibility of the transcript at trial if Plaintiff fails to authenticate the transcript, as set forth above. Pima County's 976 Motion in Limine re: Post-2013 Conduct is taken under advisement, pending resolution of Plaintiff's Memorandum re: Equitable Estoppel. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 4/30/24. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
1115
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED, Defendants' 1078 Motion for Reconsideration re: Expungement Claim is GRANTED. Summary judgment is granted in Defendants' favor on the claim asserted in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint seeking declaratory rel ief expunging Louis Taylor's outstanding 2013 convictions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court construes Plaintiff's Memorandum re: Equitable Estoppel as a Motion. Within 14 days of the date this Order is filed, Defendants may file a response to the Memorandum re: Equitable Estoppel. Plaintiff may file a reply within 7 days of service of Defendants' response. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 4/18/24. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
994
ORDER DENYING 886 Motion to Transfer Venue. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/28/24. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
869
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED, the under-advisement portion of Plaintiff's 397 Motion in Limine to Preclude the Testimony of Holmes is denied to the extent the Court declines to rule on whether Holmes's testimony is admissible under Daubert for th e purpose of proving that the Pioneer Hotel fire was arson. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED withdrawing as an unnecessary ruling the following portion of the Court's Order on Plaintiff's Motion in Limine re: Prior Testimony of Robert Jackson: 566 a t 4:18 to 5:5, including footnotes. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED withdrawing as an unnecessary ruling the following portion of the Court's Order on Plaintiffs Motion in Limine re: Cyrillis Holmes: Doc. 569 at 4:2-13. Plaintiff's 349 Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for 371 Summary Judgment are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, Defendants' (Docs. 332 , 351 ) Motions for Summary Judgment are granted in part and denied in part as reflected in this Order. Parties shall file a Joint Proposed Pretrial order within 30 days of the date this Order is filed. On or before 2/16/24, the parties shall submit a stipulated description of the case and 15 stipulated juror questionnaire questions. Motions in limine and Daubert motions are due on or before 3/4/24. Responses are due on or before 3/18/24. No replies shall be permitted absent leave of Court. (See attached PDF for complete information). Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 1/19/24. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
777
ORDER that Defendants' 679 Motion to Strike is denied without prejudice. However, Plaintiff must seek leave of Court before using the draft op ed in this action in the future. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 10/11/23. (See attached Order for complete details) (JAM)
|
|
Filing
711
ORDER DENYING 681 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 8/3/23. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
624
ORDER granting 572 Motion to Substitute Party. Guardian and Conservator Nina Alley is hereby substituted in place of Louis Taylor as the plaintiff in this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket accordingly. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 5/17/23. (See attached Order for complete details) (JAM)
|
|
Filing
569
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 397 Motion in Limine re: Cyrillis Holmes is denied to the extent it argues that Holmes's testimony must be excluded due to a violation of the Sixth Amendment or for failure to comply with the written report requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). The Motion is otherwise taken under advisement. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/27/23. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
567
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED, Defendant's 350 Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Andrew Pacheco is partially granted and partially denied, as set forth in this Order. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/24/23. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
566
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 377 Motion in Limine Regarding Prior Testimony of Robert Jackson. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/24/23. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
565
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED, the Court declines to take any action regarding Plaintiffs emailed requests. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/21/23. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
431
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED, Plaintiff's 418 Motion for Clarification is PARTIALLY GRANTED and PARTIALLY DENIED as follows: Pending further Order of the Court, defense counsel shall not disseminate the witness declaration (Doc. 417), Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief (Doc. 426), or information that could identify the declarant with anyone other than their clients in the above-captioned case. Defendants may move to lift the above restriction and to unseal the witness declaration and supplementa l briefing after the Court rules on the propriety of considering the witness declaration. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall immediately serve a copy of his Supplemental Brief (Doc. 426) on Defendants. Defendants' 427 Joint Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief is GRANTED. Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief is due within 10 days of service of the Supplemental Brief. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 7/29/22. (BAC) (BAC)
|
|
Filing
393
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motions (Doc. 376 , 378 ) are denied. Any motions in limine to be considered in conjunction with the parties' summary judgment motions must be filed on or before 4/11/22. Responses must be filed on or before 4/25/22. Replies must be filed on or before 5/2/22. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 4/7/22. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
362
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 354 Motion to Strike is DENIED to the extent it asks the Court to strike any portion of Pima County's Statement of Facts; however, the Motion is PARTIALLY GRANTED to the extent it requests an extension of the summ ary judgment response deadline. The deadline for all parties to file responses to the pending Motions for Summary Judgment is extended to 3/21/22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City of Tucson's 358 Motion to Exceed Page Limit is GRANTED. All parties may file summary judgment responses not to exceed 25 pages in length. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/9/22. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
313
ORDER granting 303 Motion for Leave to Preserve Testimony of Former Tucson Police Officer Claus Bergman. Plaintiff may take the deposition of Claus Bergman on or before January 5, 2022. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 12/14/2021. (DLC)
|
|
Filing
300
ORDER: Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Supplemented Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 272 ) is granted. Plaintiff's Supplemented Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 251 ) is dismissed. Laura Conover's Motion to Quash (Doc. 250 ) is grante d. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 266 ) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Pima County's Reply in Support of Laura Conover's Motion to Quash (Doc. 265 ). Plaintiff's Motion to Quash (Doc. 247 ) is partiall y granted to the extent it seeks modification of the subpoenas at issue to exclude information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, but it is otherwise denied. Defendant's Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (Doc. 294 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion to Set Rebuttal Expert Deadline (Doc. 295 ) is granted. Plaintiff's Motion to Set Trial Date (Doc. 260 ) is partially granted to the extent it requests a firm trial date and partially denied to the extent it requests a trial date in early 2022. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 10/28/2021. (See attached Order for complete information.) (SCA)
|
|
Filing
258
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 246 ) is granted, nunc pro tunc. Plaintiff's Supplemented TAC (Doc. 251 ) is considered properly filed. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 7/30/2021. (ARC)
|
|
Filing
227
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Pima County's 177 Motion to Dismiss is denied. Defendant City of Tucson's 173 Motion for Reconsideration is partially granted and partially denied, as set forth in this Order. Defendant City of Tucson 's 180 Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Counts 6 and 7 of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint but otherwise denied. Counts 6 and 7 of Plaintiff's 169 Third Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 6/4/21. (BAC)
|
|
Filing
222
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff is precluded from conducting discovery concerning the determination that Pima County Attorney Laura Conover has a conflict of interest in this matter. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 5/25/21.(BAC)
|
|
Filing
127
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall attempt to resolve their disputes concerning the 30(b)(6) depositions and fact-witness depositions through further personal consultation. If parties are unable to resolve the disputes after sincere efforts at further personal consultation, they shall file a joint notice on 8/1/20. Joint notice shall not exceed 3 pages in length and shall provide a brief description of the issues remaining in dispute concerning the 30(b)(6) depositions and/or fact-witness depositions. (See attached PDF for complete information). Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 7/13/20.(BAC)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
