United States District Court, D. Hawaii
Charles A. Hicks; Deneen Hicks; and Stacey Hicks, Plaintiffs,
Association of Apartment Owners of Makaha Valley Plantation; and Hawaii First, Inc., Defendants.
TRIAL PROCEDURE ORDER DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN
LIMINE NOS. 3, 8, 10, AND 11
Gillmor United States District Judge
Association of Apartment Owners of Makaha Valley Plantation
and Hawaii First, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants")
have filed 11 motions in limine.
11, 2016, the Court held a further Final Pre-Trial
Conference, during which the Court heard argument and
rendered oral rulings on Motions in Limine Nos. 3, 8, 10, and
11. This written order sets forth the Court's legal bases
for the rulings.
in Limine No. 3 to Bar References to Unpled Claims (ECF
Motion in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Evidence Relating to the
Foreclosure on Plaintiffs' Condominium Unit (ECF No. 112)
Motion in Limine No. 3 seeks to bar any reference or evidence
concerning claims and remedies that are not asserted in
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Motion in Limine No. 8
asks that the Court bar any reference or evidence concerning
the foreclosure on Plaintiffs' condominium unit, as
Plaintiffs did not assert such a claim in their Amended
Complaint. The Amended Complaint states only that "as a
result of the adverse, discriminatory terms and conditions of
residency that they have been subjected to by the
defendants[, ] . . . the plaintiffs have vacated their condo
unit and are currently living in Georgia." (Amended
Complaint at p. 15, ECF No. 40). There is no reference in the
Amended Complaint as to the foreclosure on the unit.
Court may exclude evidence that is irrelevant or has a
probative value that is substantially outweighed by a danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and could
mislead the jury. Fed.R.Evid. 402; 403.
Charles Hicks has filed another lawsuit challenging the
foreclosure, but that lawsuit does not allege that the
foreclosure had any connection to housing discrimination.
Charles A. Hicks v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Makaha
Valley Plantation; R. Laree McGuire,
16-cv-00249-JMS-RLP, ECF No. 1.
by Plaintiffs that Defendants were responsible for the
foreclosure of their condominium are not part of the
Plaintiffs' claims and are highly prejudicial. See
Scotts Co. v. Cent. Garden & Pet Co., No. 2:00 CV 755,
2002 WL 1578791, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2002) (granting
motion in limine to exclude references to an new and unpled
claim). Exposing the jury to unsubstantiated allegations
would cause significant confusion and distract the jury from
its task. Fed.R.Evid. 403.
Motion in Limine Nos. 3 and 8 are GRANTED.
Parties are precluded from introducing any testimony,
evidence, or argument, as to unpled claims, including the
foreclosure on Plaintiffs' condominium unit.
in Limine No. 10 to Exclude Cumulative Witnesses (ECF No.
seek to preclude Plaintiffs from calling witnesses whose
testimony will be cumulative, duplicative, or redundant.
Rule of Evidence 403 permits the Court to exclude needlessly
cumulative testimony that has little incremental value.
United States v. Miguel, 87 F.App'x 67, 68-69
(9th Cir. 2004); Fed.R.Evid. 403. "Cumulative evidence
replicates other admitted evidence." United States
v. Ives, 609 F.2d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 1979). A
witness's testimony may be needlessly cumulative if the
plaintiff presents evidence bearing on the same point through
other witnesses. Rogers v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 922
F.2d 1426, 1430-31 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming district
court's decision to exclude witness testimony that had
little probative value and presented cumulative testimony).
Past and Present Employees
Plaintiffs intend to call the following witnesses:
and Anson Amaral.
state that the witnesses are all current or former employees
of Defendants. Plaintiffs represent that they intend to
question the witnesses about interactions with Plaintiffs and
their knowledge of Plaintiffs' claims.
may serve trial subpoenas for those witnesses who are current
employees of Defendants upon defense counsel or at
Defendants' places of business. Plaintiffs must indicate