Berry

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 BRYANNA BERRY, Case No. 21-cv-08436-VKD

9 Plaintiff, FURTHER ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S 10 v. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 AND PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED TRIAL 11 SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICER LINDSAY EXHIBIT 21

PARODI (4426),

12 Re: Dkt. Nos. 65, 67, 82 Defendant.

13 14 In Motion in Limine No. 4, Detective Alvarez1 moved to exclude all evidence and 15 argument regarding any Miranda2 violation, arguing that such evidence and argument is irrelevant, 16 misleading, and unduly prejudicial. See Dkt. No. 65, 67. The parties also dispute the 17 admissibility of Ms. Berry’s proposed trial Exhibit No. 21, which is a copy of Ms. Berry’s 18 Pitchess3 motion filed in the criminal prosecution against her. See Dkt. No. 68-2. Ms. Berry does 19 not contend that her statements are inadmissible by virtue of any failure of police officers to give 20 her a Miranda warning. See Dkt. No. 72 at 6; see also Dkt. No. 72. …