United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MARIA THERESE RICKS, as Guardian Ad Litem for her minor son, M.R., Plaintiff,
KATHRYN MATAYOSHI, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the State of Hawaii Department of Education, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS.
1, 3, AND 4 (ECF NOS. 72, 74, 75) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1 AND 2 (ECF NOS. 76, 77)
GILLMOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
single count at trial is Plaintiff's claim against
Defendant Kathryn Matayoshi in her official capacity as
Superintendent of the State of Hawaii Department of Education
alleging a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
Parties have filed Motions in Limine seeking to exclude
evidence at trial.
Defendant's Motions in Limine
Motion No. 1 (ECF No. 72): Motion to Exclude Lay Witness
Testimony of Christina Juan, Collyn Chang, and Crystal
Motion No. 3 (ECF No. 74): Motion to Exclude Evidence of
or Reference to Other Litigation in Which the Hawaii
Department of Education Was a Party
Motions No. 1 and 3 seek to preclude Plaintiff from
introducing evidence and testimony about litigation and
incidents of abuse alleged against the Hawaii Department of
opposes the Defendant's Motions. Plaintiff states that
she intends to call the following three witnesses:
(1) Christina Juan, Principal of the Hawaii School for the
Deaf and Blind;
(2) Collyn Chang, who claims her daughter was physically
abused at a Hawaii Department of Education school; and,
(3) Crystal Amelang, who Plaintiff describes as being a
classroom aid who witnessed abuse of other special needs
(Pla.'s Opp. at p. 2, ECF No. 92). Plaintiff claims that
the three witnesses' testimony is relevant to a
“pattern and practice of using physical restraint and
abusing special needs children at DOE schools.”
(Id.) Plaintiff believes evidence of other
litigation is relevant to her case. (Pla.'s Opp. at pp.
3-4, ECF No. 94).
has not established that the testimony of any of the three
witnesses is relevant. Evidence is relevant if it has a
tendency to make a fact more probable or less probable than
it would be without the evidence, and if the fact is of
consequence in determining the action. Fed.R.Evid. 401.
the three witnesses identified by the Plaintiff have
knowledge of a fact that is of consequence in determining the
action with respect to M.R. The only issue in this case is if
the Defendant violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
with respect ...