Lopez v. Chula Vista Police Department et al
| Sergio Lopez |
| Chula Vista Police Department, The City of Chula Vista, Richard Emerson, D. Clark, G. Armstrong, D. Martinez, Guthrie, Forbes and Does 1-20 |
| 3:2007cv01272 |
| July 13, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| William Q. Hayes |
| Barbara Lynn Major |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
116
ORDER: (1) Plaintiff's (Doc. 83 ) Motion in Limine to exclude William Lewinski is granted in part and denied in part. This ruling is without prejudice to renew at trial. Plaintiff's (Doc. 83 ) Motion in Limine to exclude Dale Bourgeois is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's (Doc. 83 ) Motion in Limine to exclude Elmer Pellegrino is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's (Doc. 83 ) Motion in Limine to exclude Dr. Kalish is deferred until the conclusion of Plaintiff's case in chief. The parties shall not reference Dr. Kalish during opening statements. Plaintiff's (Doc. 82 ) Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding False Credentials is granted without prejudice. Defendants' (Doc. 76 ) Motion in L imine No. 1 is denied without prejudice. Prior to referencing or eliciting evidence of any incidents which fall within the scope of Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1, Plaintiff shall bring the matter to the Court's attention outside the pr esence of the jury. If Plaintiff intends to introduce any evidence which he contends is admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), Plaintiff must file a memorandum detailing the evidence and specifying the purpose for which the evidence will be sought to be admitted. This memorandum must be filed no later than 2/19/2010 at 05:00 PM. Defendants' (Doc. 77 ) Motion in Limine No. 2 is granted. Defendants' (Doc. 78 ) Motion in Limine No. 3 is denied without prejudice. Defenda nts' (Doc. 79 ) Motion in Limine No. 4 is granted in part and denied in part. This ruling is without prejudice to renew at trial. Defendants' (Doc. 81 ) Motion in Limine No. 5 is granted in part and denied in part. This ruling is without prejudice to renew at trial. Defendants' (Doc. 80 ) Motion in Limine No. 6 is granted. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 2/18/2010. (mdc) (jrl).
|
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 California Southern 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.
