Martinez

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LISAMARIA MARTINEZ, Case No. 20-cv-06570-TSH

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: MOTION IN LIMINE

9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 111, 134 10 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, 11 Defendant.

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4. ECF No. 111. Plaintiff 15 moves to limit the expert testimony of Defendant’s expert Cris Vaughan to exclude testimony that 16 amounts to a conclusion of law. ECF No. 111 at 4. In its February 29, 2024, pretrial order, the 17 Court previously denied this motion without prejudice because the Court had not received a copy 18 of Vaughan’s expert report. ECF No. 124 at 13–14. Plaintiff has since provided a copy of 19 Vaughan’s expert report. ECF No. 134-1. Having considered the quoted statements in context, 20 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4. 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 Plaintiff asks the Court to exclude the below four examples of what it contends are legal 23 conclusions, as…