The opinion of the court was delivered by: Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DEFENDANTS MOTION REGARDING JURY INSTRUCTIONS
On July 16, 2012, Defendants Patricia Hamamoto, in her official capacity, the Hawaii Department of Education ("DOE"), and the State of Hawai`i (collectively "Defendants") filed three motions in limine, [dkt. nos. 575, 576, 577,] and Plaintiffs Mark H. and Rie H., individually and as Guardians Ad Litem of Michelle H. and Natalie H., minors, filed five motions in limine [dkt. nos. 580, 581, 582, 583, 584]. Also on July 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Omnibus Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Proposed Jury Instructions and Motions in Limine ("Omnibus Memorandum"). [Dkt. no. 579.] In addition, Defendants filed their Motion Regarding Proposed Jury Instructions ("Jury Instructions Motion") on July 16, 2012. [Dkt. no. 578.]
On July 31, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their memoranda in opposition to Defendants' motions in limine, [dkt. nos. 590-93,] as well as their memorandum in opposition to the Jury Instructions Motion [dkt. no. 589]. Also on July 31, 2012, Defendants filed their memoranda in opposition to Plaintiffs' motions in limine, [dkt. nos. 594-98,] as well as their response to Plaintiffs' Omnibus Memorandum [dkt. no. 593].
These matters came on for hearing on August 9, 2012. Appearing on behalf of Defendants were John-Anderson Meyer, Esq., and, by telephone, Kenneth Robbins, Esq. Appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs were Michael Livingston, Esq., and Stanley Levin, Esq. After careful consideration of the motions in limine, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the arguments of counsel, this Court HEREBY rules as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine #1 to Preclude Hawaii DOE from Introducing Evidence or Arguing to the Jury that a Subjective Standard Applies to the Determination of Deliberate Indifference ("Plaintiffs' MIL #1"). [Dkt. no. 580.]
Plaintiffs' MIL #1 is GRANTED IN PART, insofar as this Court
rules that Defendants are precluded from presenting any evidence regarding individual DOE employees' "good faith" beliefs and testimony that the individual DOE employees had Michelle H.'s and Natalie H.'s (collectively "Students") best interests at heart. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' MIL #1 in all other respects. The Court agrees that, in evaluating what the DOE did to investigate whether there were services available for Students, the Court must apply an objective standard. The Court, however, FINDS that evidence about the specific efforts the individual DOE employees made and evidence about the teachers' basic background are relevant to the objective inquiry.
Further, the Court notes that the portion of Plaintiffs' MIL #1 asking the Court to adopt Plaintiffs' proposed jury instruction on this issue is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. When the jury instructions are being settled, the Court will determine whether the Court will or will not give Plaintiffs' proposed jury instruction.
2. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine #2 to Preclude Hawaii DOE from Introducing Evidence or Making Arguments to the Jury that Are Contrary to or Inconsistent with the Factual Findings that Have Been Conclusively Established in this Case ("Plaintiffs' MIL #2"). [Dkt. no. 581.]
Plaintiffs' MIL #2 is GRANTED IN PART insofar as the Court agrees that the eight factual findings identified in the magistrate judge's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Relitigation of Factual Issues Adjudicated in Administrative Hearing, [filed 7/14/11 (dkt. no. 520),] have been affirmatively proven and are established facts in the instant case. To the extent that Plaintiffs' MIL #2 seeks to preclude evidence or argument as to the services, if any, that Defendants provided to Plaintiffs, and the investigation, if any, that Defendants undertook to determine what services were available as a reasonable accommodation, Plaintiffs' MIL #2 is DENIED IN PART insofar as such evidence is relevant to the issue of deliberate indifference.
3. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No.3 to Preclude Evidence, Testimony, Argument, or Comment Related to the Excuse or Defense of Lack of Funds or Trained Personnel ("Plaintiffs' MIL #3"). [Dkt. no. 582.]
Plaintiffs' MIL #3 is GRANTED IN PART insofar as the Court rules that the parties are precluded from presenting any testimony or evidence regarding cost, lack of funding, budgetary constraints, and/or shortage of trained personnel because such testimony and evidence are not relevant. Further, even if they were relevant, they are more prejudicial than probative, and are likely to create jury confusion. See Fed. R. Evid. 403; Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 300 (1985) ("[W]hile a grantee need not be required to make 'fundamental' or 'substantial' modifications to accommodate the handicapped, it may be required to make 'reasonable' ones." (citations omitted)). Plaintiffs' MIL #3 is DENIED IN PART insofar as the nothing in this Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' MIL #3 precludes Defendants' percipient witnesses from testifying as to what they did during the relevant time period and as to the reasons why they concluded that there were no autism-specific services available for Students.
4. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 4 to Preclude Evidence, Testimony, Argument, or Comment Related to the "Good Faith," Generally Good Performance, and Character of Hawaii DOE Employees ("Plaintiffs' MIL #4"). [Dkt. no. 583.] Plaintiffs' MIL #4 is GRANTED IN PART because the Court has already ruled that the applicable standard for deliberate indifference is an objective standard. The Court reiterates that evidence regarding "good faith", good character, sincerity, and the like regarding individual DOE employees is irrelevant, and, even if it was relevant, it is more prejudicial than probative, and is likely to create jury confusion. The Court therefore CONCLUDES that Defendants are precluded from presenting such evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Plaintiffs' MIL #4 is DENIED IN PART insofar as the Court will permit evidence regarding the nature, extent and efforts made by Defendants through their employees, as described in this Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' MIL #1.
5. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence, Testimony, Argument and Comment Concerning the Amount of Money Expended by the DOE ...