Gardner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY GARDNER, Case No. 18-cv-07784-VC

Plaintiff,

RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 81, 82, 83, 84,

CITY OF BERKELEY,

Defendant.

This order summarizes the Court’s rulings on the City’s motions in limine. As a reminder, a ruling on a motion on limine may be revised at trial. See City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017). 1. The motion to exclude testimony constituting legal conclusions is denied because it calls for a blanket ruling that cannot be made on the current record. One witness statement cited in the motion—that another person’s comments “amounted to a violation of workplace harassment policy”—is inadmissible under Rule 403 because the officer making the statement lacks the expertise and authority to reach that conclusion. But other statements, particularly statements about Gardner’s qualifications relative to other candidates, may well be relevant and admissible so long as Gardner can establish a proper foundation for each piece of testimony, including that the person testifying has adequate personal knowledge and that there is a…