From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. County of Stanislaus

United States District Court, E.D. California, Fresno Division
Dec 10, 2010
Case No. 1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA.

December 10, 2010

B. CLYDE HUTCHINSON, State Bar No. 037526, VINCENT CASTILLO, State Bar No. 209298, JASON B. SHANE, State Bar No. 253908, LOMBARDI, LOPER CONANT, LLP, Oakland, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (erroneously sued herein as AMTRAK CALIFORNIA), BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY (erroneously sued herein as BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION'S, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY'S, AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 20 TO LIMIT OR EXCLUDE ANY IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS


The Motion In Limine of Defendants National Railroad Passenger Corporation, BNSF Railway Company, and State of California, (hereinafter "NRPC, BNSF and California") to Limit or Exclude Any Improper Hypothetical Questions came on regularly for hearing on December 1, 2010, in Department 3 of the above-captioned Court. Plaintiff Lucio Corral Rodriguez was represented by Aaron Markowitz, Esq. Defendants NRPC, BNSF and California were represented by Clyde Hutchinson and Vincent Castillo. The County of Stanislaus was represented by Dan Farrar. Having considered the moving papers, any opposition filed, and following oral argument, the Court orders as follows:

The Motion in Limine is GRANTED.

1. All parties are barred from asking any hypothetical question not authorized by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Any hypothetical question must contain assumed facts that the asking party in good faith believes will be established by the evidence. No hypothetical question may be argumentatively stated, nor contain inflammatory, misleading, or provocative terms.

All parties are not permitted to make reference in the selection of a jury, presentation of evidence, reference to evidence, testimony, or argument of the matters precluded above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2010


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. County of Stanislaus

United States District Court, E.D. California, Fresno Division
Dec 10, 2010
Case No. 1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2010)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. County of Stanislaus

Case Details

Full title:LUCIO CORRAL RODRIGUEZ, individually and as Successor in Interest to the…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California, Fresno Division

Date published: Dec 10, 2010

Citations

Case No. 1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2010)