Rodriguez v. County of Stanislaus

1:08-cv-00856 | E.D. Cal. | Dec 13, 2010

Case 1:08-cv-00856-LJO-GSA Document 406 Filed 12/13/10 Page 1 of 2

1 B. CLYDE HUTCHINSON, State Bar No. 037526 bch@llcllp.com 2 VINCENT CASTILLO, State Bar No. 209298 vcastillo@llcllp.com 3 JASON B. SHANE, State Bar No. 253908 jshane@llcllp.com 4 LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP Lake Merritt Plaza 5 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600 Oakland, CA 94612-3541 6 Telephone: (510) 433-2600 Facsimile: (510) 433-2699 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (erroneously sued herein as 9 AMTRAK CALIFORNIA), BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY (erroneously sued herein as 10 BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE P L RAILWAY), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, L 11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , T [0] N [0] A [6] [2] [1] N [4] e 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [5] O t [3] i u - C

S [2] [1] & , [6] t e [4] 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION e [9] R r t E S A C P n O o , 14 d s L i n

r r a a l

, k I H a D LUCIO CORRAL RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA O [9] 15 R [9] [9] A individually and as Successor in Interest to [1] B M the decedents, MARICRUZ CORRAL, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS

16 O IVAN ALEXANDER CORRAL, and NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER L LUCIO ANTHONY CORRAL, CORPORATION’S, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY’S, AND STATE OF Plaintiffs, CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S MOTION IN v. LIMINE NO. 11 TO LIMIT OR PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OBTAINED COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CITY OF DURING PLAINTIFF’S UNNOTICED MODESTO; CITY OF RIVERBANK; SITE INSPECTIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AMTRAK CALIFORNIA; BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY; and DOES 1 to 200,

Defendants. AND ALL RELATED ACTIONS. The Motion In Limine of Defendants National Railroad Passenger Corporation, BNSF Railway Company, and State of California, (hereinafter “NRPC, BNSF and California”) to Limit 13249-36853 VC 592193.1 1 Case No. 1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA

ORDER GRANTING DEFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 Case 1:08-cv-00856-LJO-GSA Document 406 Filed 12/13/10 Page 2 of 2

1

or Preclude Evidence Obtained During Plaintiffs’ Unnoticed Site Inspections came on regularly

2

for hearing on December 1, 2010, in Department 3 of the above-captioned Court. Plaintiff Lucio

3

Corral Rodriguez was represented by Aaron Markowitz, Esq. Defendants NRPC, BNSF and

4

California were represented by Clyde Hutchinson and Vincent Castillo. The County of Stanislaus

5

was represented by Dan Farrar. Having considered the moving papers, any opposition filed, and

6

following oral argument, the Court orders as follows:

7

The Motion in Limine is GRANTED.

8

1. Plaintiff is barred from presenting evidence of any kind obtained (a) during any

9

and all unnoticed site inspections by him, his attorneys, his experts, or any other agent at the

10

Claribel Road crossing or any other property of BNSF and (b) while entering onto BNSF’s

P

L

L

11 private property without the permission of BNSF. The Court finds that any suggestion, argument, ,

T

[0]

N

[0] A [6] [2] [1] N [4] e 12 testimony, or presentation of evidence resulting from those unnoticed site inspections is in [5] O t [3] i u - C

S [2] [1] & , [6] t e [4] 13 violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, if Plaintiff, his attorneys, his experts, or any other agent entered e [9] R r t E S A C P n O o , 14 BNSF’s private property to obtain evidence without notice or consent. d s L i n

r r a a l

, k I H a D O [9] 15 Plaintiff is not permitted to make reference in the selection of a jury, presentation of R [9] [9] A [1]

B

M

16

evidence, reference to evidence, testimony, or argument of the matters precluded above.

O

L

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h 13249-36853 VC 592193.1 2 Case No. 1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA

ORDER GRANTING DEFS’ MOTION

IN LIMINE NO. 11