Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 21STCV43085, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43085    Hearing Date: June 13, 2025    Dept: 55

Medrano v. County of LA 21STCV43085

Below are the Court’s rulings on Plaintiff’s MIL Nos. 1-6 and Defendant’s MIL Nos. 1-2. The Court will issue rulings on Plaintiff’s MIL Nos. 7-8 and Defendant’s MIL Nos. 3-11 at a continued FSC.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1 to Exclude any Reference to Taxpayer Dollars Used to Satisfy a Judgment or Verdict is denied.  The motion in limine here is not specific enough for the Court to make a meaningful order.  The motion fails to identify what specific evidence the moving party seeks to exclude.  As such, the motion in limine also fails to comply with Local Rule 3.57. 

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 2 to Exclude any Reference to County Budget, Budget Cuts, Financial Constraints, or Economic Impact is denied. The motion in limine here is not specific enough for the Court to make a meaningful order.  The motion fails to identify what specific evidence the moving party seeks to exclude.  As such, the motion in limine also fails to comply with Local Rule 3.57. 

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 3 to Exclude Reference to the “Little” Comment in 2011/2012 is granted as the Court has already ruled that Plaintiff’s claims and allegations before January 1, 2019 are time-barred. But such evidence can be used as impeachment evidence.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 4 to Admit Plaintiff’s Employment Background and Attempts to Promote that Pre-Date January 1, 2019 is denied. This is not a proper motion in limine insofar as it seeks a pretrial ruling that certain evidence is admissible under all circumstances. In fact, the Court has already ruled that Plaintiff’s claims and allegations before January 1, 2019 are time-barred. Plaintiff’s motion to “admit” such evidence is nothing but an untimely and improper motion for reconsideration in disguise.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 5 to Preclude any Documentary Evidence at Trial is denied. The motion in limine is not specific enough for the Court to make a meaningful order.  The motion fails to identify what specific evidence the moving party seeks to exclude.  What Plaintiff is really asking for is a discovery sanction against Defendant. To the extent Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not produce documents in response to discovery requests, Plaintiff did not timely move to compel further responses and thus cannot seek discovery sanctions by way of a motion in limine.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 6 to Preclude Defendant from Introducing Specific Documents Emailed but not Part of Verified Discovery Responses is denied. What Plaintiff is really asking for is a discovery sanction against Defendant. To the extent Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not produce code-compliant documents in response to discovery requests, Plaintiff did not timely move to compel further responses and thus cannot seek discovery sanctions by way of a motion in limine.

Defendant’s MIL No. 1 to Exclude Evidence of Pre-2019 Claims and Statements is granted as the Court has already ruled that Plaintiff’s claims and allegations before January 1, 2019 are time-barred. But such evidence can be used as impeachment evidence.

Defendant’s MIL No. 2 to Exclude Evidence of Claims Occurring After November 22, 2021 is denied. The motion in limine here is not specific enough for the Court to make a meaningful order.  The motion fails to identify what specific evidence the moving party seeks to exclude.  As such, the motion in limine also fails to comply with Local Rule 3.57. 

With respect to all motions in limine above that have been denied, the moving party may renew the objection to the introduction of this evidence at trial, and the Court will rule on the evidentiary objection anew in the context of the other evidence that is presented at trial.