Johnson v. County of Santa Clara

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 20245:18-cv-06264California4,067 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 ANDREW LEE JOHNSON, Case No. 18-cv-06264-EJD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

10 v.

11 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 12 Defendants. 252, 253, 254, 255, 256

13 14 On January 26, 2014, the Court held a pretrial conference in this action, during which it 15 issued oral rulings on Plaintiff Andrew Lee Johnson’s (“Mr. Johnson”) Motions in Limine Nos. 1– 16 4 and Defendants City of San Jose (the “City”), Marco Monzon (“Officer Monzon”), and Jamie 17 Lee Nicholas Hall’s (“Officer Hall” and, with the City and Officer Monzon, “Defendants”) 18 Motions in Limine Nos. 1–7. The Court here expands upon those oral rulings. 19 I. MR. JOHNSON’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE 20 Mr. Johnson filed four motions in limine. See Pl. MILs 1–4, ECF Nos. 253–56. 21 Defendants opposed all four motions. See Opp’ns Pl. MILs 1–4, ECF Nos. 257–60. The Court 22 addresses each in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.