Ewalan v. Schreiber

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 6, 2024
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05678
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 JOSEPH LOCHUCH EWALAN, CASE NO. C20-5678JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 ROBERT SCHREIBER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Before the court are pro se Plaintiff Joseph Lochuch Ewalan’s motions in limine 16 (Pl. 1st MIL (Dkt. # 173); Pl. 2d MIL (Dkt. # 174)), and Defendants Robert Schreiber, 17 Arlee Rothwell, Russell Dickerson, Kendra Wakefield, and Denny Larson’s (collectively, 18 “Defendants”) motions in limine (Def. MIL (Dkt. # 175)). Although certain motions are 19 agreed (see Def. MIL at 2-3), the parties largely oppose each other’s motions in limine. 20 (Def. 1st Resp. (Dkt. # 177); Def. 2d Resp. (Dkt. # 183); Def. Supp. Resp. (Dkt. # 186); 21 Pl. Resp. (Dkt. # 176); Pl. 1st Reply (Dkt. # 179); Pl. 2d Reply (Dkt. # 189).) 22 1 On March 5, 2024, the court held a status conference and orally ruled on the 2 parties’ motions in limine. (3/5/24 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 195).) The court enters this

3 written order memorializing its rulings for the benefit of the parties. Accordingly, as 4 stated on the record, the court ORDERS as follows: 5 Moving Motion in Limine Ruling Party 6 1 Agreed1 Exclude witnesses from the GRANTED as to nonparty courtroom so they cannot hear witnesses. Parties will be 7 the testimony of other permitted in the courtroom witnesses. (Def. MIL at 2.) during trial. 8 2 Agreed Exclude irrelevant evidence. GRANTED. (Id.) 9 3 Agreed Exclude any testimony or GRANTED. argument which invites jurors 10 to conceptually put themselves in the place of a party (i.e., the 11 “golden rule” argument). (Id. at 3.) 12 4 Agreed Exclude any testimony or GRANTED. evidence regarding settlement 13 negotiations. (Id.) 5 Mr. Ewalan Admit Mr. Ewalan’s diary DENIED without prejudice to 14 entries from 2016-2023. (Pl. seeking admission at trial in 1st MIL at 8-9, 14-15.2) accordance with the Federal 15 Rules of Evidence. 6 Mr. Ewalan Admit photos of Mr. Ewalan’s DENIED without prejudice to 16 injuries. (Id. at 9-10, 15.) seeking admission at trial in accordance with the Federal 17 Rules of Evidence. 18 19

1 All agreed motions were presented by Defendants and unopposed by Mr. Ewalan. (See 20 Def. MIL at 2-3 (stating that the parties met and conferred on December 19, 2023, and reached agreement on certain motions in limine as identified in Defendants’ briefing); see also Pl. Resp. 21 at 2 (calling the agreed motions identified by Defendants “fair game”).)

2 The court references the CM/ECF header when citing to pages in Mr. Ewalan’s 22 briefing. 1 7 Mr. Ewalan Admit Mr. Ewalan’s medical DENIED without prejudice to records. (Id. at 10-11, 15.) seeking admission at trial in 2 accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. 3 8 Mr. Ewalan Admit Defendant Arlee DENIED without prejudice to Rothwell’s Declaration. (Id. at seeking admission at trial in 4 11.) accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. 5 9 Mr. Ewalan Admit cell/bed change request DENIED without prejudice to and documents showing denial seeking admission at trial in 6 of Mr. Ewalan’s public records accordance with the Federal requests related to disciplinary Rules of Evidence. 7 hearing testimony. (Id. at 11-12, 15-16.) 8 10 Mr. Ewalan Admit Defendants’ DENIED without prejudice to interrogatory responses. (Id. at seeking admission at trial in 9 12, 16.) accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. 10 11 Mr. Ewalan Admit Mr. Ewalan’s PTSD DENIED without prejudice to records. (Id. at 12, 15.) seeking admission at trial in 11 accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. 12 12 Mr. Ewalan Exclude evidence of Mr. DENIED. Ewalan’s history of underlying 13 health conditions unrelated to the injuries at issue in this case. 14 (Pl. 2d MIL at 1.) 13 Mr. Ewalan Exclude Mr. Ewalan’s DENIED. 15 deposition testimony from Ewalan v. T. St. Germain et al., 16 No. 21-5519BJR-MLP (W.D. Wash.). (Id. at 2.) 17 14 Mr. Ewalan Exclude witnesses not GRANTED to the extent Mr. disclosed in pre-trial motions, Ewalan seeks to exclude 18 at summary judgment, or in witnesses who were not properly motions in limine. (Id.) and timely disclosed. 19 15 Mr. Ewalan Exclude Defendants from the DENIED. courtroom during trial, except 20 when testifying. (Id.) 16 Mr. Ewalan Exclude incarcerated DENIED. 21 witnesses. (Id.)

22 1 17 Mr. Ewalan Prohibit Defendants from DENIED. introducing evidence related to 2 Mr. Ewalan’s race, nationality, and prior career in Kenya. 3 (Id.) 18 Mr. Ewalan Exclude evidence of Mr. GRANTED. The parties may 4 Ewalan’s criminal case. (Id.) propose a limiting instruction concerning Mr. Ewalan’s 5 incarcerated status. 19 Defendants Exclude opinions of Mr. GRANTED in part to the extent 6 Ewalan or lay witnesses when that Defendants seek to bar Mr. they lack personal knowledge. Ewalan from testifying as to 7 (Def. MIL at 3-4.) Defendants’ mental states. RESERVED RULING in part as 8 to the balance of this motion. 20 Defendants Exclude character evidence. RESERVED RULING. 9 (Id. at 4.) 21 Defendants Exclude evidence related to GRANTED as to evidence that 10 legal theories or defendants relates only to dismissed parties that the court dismissed by or claims and that is wholly 11 summary judgment. (Id. at irrelevant to the remaining 4-5.) claims. 12 22 Defendants Prohibit suggestions or RESERVED RULING. accusations that relevant 13 witnesses were not called and mid-trial demands for 14 documents or information. (Id. at 5-6.) 15 23 Defendants Exclude undisclosed or GRANTED. untimely disclosed evidence 16 and witnesses. (Id. at 6.) 24 Defendants Enforce the order and GRANTED in part. At the end 17 presentation of witnesses. (Id. of each trial day, the parties shall at 6-7 (describing Defendants’ inform each other and the court 18 proposed framework for of the next day’s witnesses; the scheduling witnesses).) parties shall also promptly notify 19 each other and the court of any last-minute rescheduling of 20 witnesses. 21 22 1 25 Defendants Exclude evidence of research GRANTED in part to the extent done by Plaintiff about his this motion embraces testimony 2 medical condition, treatment, by Mr. Ewalan about Internet or as well as his own other research concerning his 3 self-perceptions. (Id. at 7.) medical condition, and topics ordinarily reserved for expert 4 witnesses, such as medical causation. DENIED in part to 5 the extent this motion embraces testimony by Mr. Ewalan on 6 topics of which he has personal knowledge, such as his pain and 7 treatment experiences. 26 Defendants Prohibit Mr. Ewalan from GRANTED. 8 offering expert testimony regarding causation. (Id. at 9 7-8.) 27 Defendants Prohibit any argument or DENIED. 10 inference outside the record aimed at a punitive result or for 11 political effect. (Id. at 8-9.) 28 Defendants Exclude evidence regarding GRANTED. 12 litigation-induced mental or emotional states for the 13 purpose of recovering damages for the same. (Id. at 9-10.) 14 29 Defendants Prohibit Mr. Ewalan from GRANTED in part. Mr. Ewalan referring to indemnification by may not introduce evidence of 15 the State and referring to indemnification by the State, and defense counsel as the “State’s Defendants may propose a 16 attorneys” or similar. (Id. at curative instruction at trial 10.) should the issue arise. But Mr. 17 Ewalan may refer to opposing counsel as the “State’s 18 attorneys” or similar.

19 // 20 // 21 // 22 1 The parties are reminded that trial is subject to reasonable time limits, as this is a 2 civil case. See, e.g., Monotype Corp. PLC v. Int’l Typeface Corp., 43 F.3d 443, 450-51

3 (9th Cir. 1994). Trial will not exceed six days. (See 10/23/23 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 166) 4 (scheduling trial for six days, with trial time to be split evenly between the parties).) 5 Dated this 6th day of March, 2024. A 6 JAMES L. ROBART 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22