Opinion
2:03-cv-01524-RCJ-LRL.
December 27, 2010
ORDER
This case arises out of a SWAT team raid of Plaintiffs Charles and Rita Barnard's home in Henderson, Nevada on December 8, 2001. Plaintiffs sued the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and four officers thereof on seven causes of action: (1) Civil Rights Violations Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Illegal Search and Seizure and Excessive Force Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments); (2) Battery; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Civil Conspiracy; (5) Respondeat Superior; (6) Negligence; and (7) Loss of Consortium (Rita Barnard only). ( See Am. Compl., May 26, 2004, ECF No. 10).
Judge Brian E. Sandoval granted summary judgment to Defendants. ( See Summ. J. Order, Mar. 9, 2007, ECF No. 57). In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed as to the illegal search and seizure and municipal liability claims, reversed as to the excessive force claim, and remanded the state law claims for an analysis of discretionary act immunity under Martinez v. Maruszczak, 168 P.3d 720 (Nev. 2007). ( See Mem. Op., Feb. 4, 2009, ECF No. 70). The Court then granted summary judgment as to the state law claims after a Martinez analysis. ( See Summ. J. Order, Jan. 26, 2010, ECF No. 98). Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, but the Court of Appeals has since granted Plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of that appeal. ( See Order and Mandate, Apr. 5, 2010, ECF No. 106). Only a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim remains for trial.
Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of medical bills related to Plaintiff's neck injuries. ( See Emergency Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Medical Bills Related to Alleged Neck Injury, ECF No. 127). The Court denied the motion verbally at a September 16, 2010 hearing and indicated it would reserve ruling until trial, because there was nothing to rule on — Plaintiff had not yet presented his evidence of causation of neck injuries at trial, so the Court could not determine if there was any foundation for such evidence.
Defendants have now filed a repetitive, identical motion in limine. ( See Mot., Oct. 19, 2010, ECF No. 130). Defendants contend, as they did before, that all evidence in the record indicates Plaintiff's neck injuries were caused by a subsequent event and that no evidence supports causation by Defendants. The Court cannot at this time be certain that none of Plaintiffs' expert or percipient witnesses will testify at trial as to facts supporting a finding that Defendants caused Plaintiff's neck injuries. If there is evidence of causation at trial, then evidence of Charles Barnard's medical bills for his neck injuries will be relevant. On the other hand, if Plaintiffs provide no evidence whatsoever at trial supporting a finding of causation as to Barnard's neck injuries, Defendants may move for a judgment as a matter of law at the end of Plaintiffs' case-in-chief, and the jury's province over the case will be narrowed accordingly. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). At the present time, however, the Court will deny the motion in limine, without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Medical Bills Related to Alleged Neck Injury (ECF No. 130) is DENIED, without prejudice.IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 27, 2010