Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3101 North Central Avenue ­ Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

GAONA LAW FIRM
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVE, SUITE 720 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 _____________

(602) 230-2636 Fax (602) 230-1377

David F. Gaona, State Bar No. 007391 Nicole Seder Cantelme, State Bar No. 021320 Attorneys for Defendants APS, Doug McDonald and Donald Wilson IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JAMES W. FIELD and SUSAN F. FIELD, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, vs. LA PAZ COUNTY, et al., Defendants. Defendants Arizona Public Service Company, Doug McDonald and Donald Wilson ("APS Defendants") respectfully request this Court issue its pretrial Order in limine precluding the Plaintiff from introducing before the jury documentary and testimonial evidence already acknowledged by this Court to be irrelevant or inadmissible. This Motion is more fully supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities. /// /// No. CIV03-02214 PHX SRB APS DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE RE: EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PLAINTIFF ALREADY DEEMED IRRELEVANT OR INADMISSIBLE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

GAONA LAW FIRM

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 178

Filed 05/22/2006

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3101 North Central Avenue ­ Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2006. GAONA LAW FIRM s/ Nicole Seder Cantelme David F. Gaona Nicole Seder Cantelme Attorneys for APS, Doug McDonald and Donald Wilson MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES In this Court's Order, dated April 27, 2006 ("Order"), this Court acknowledged that several pieces of evidence put forth by the Plaintiff in response to summary judgment were either irrelevant or inadmissible. For example, on page 26 of the Order, in footnote 13, this Court stated: James argues that there were no obvious dangers on the Property, but he has submitted no evidence in support of it. All of the documents that he believes to be evidence are either irrelevant or inadmissible. For example, photographs of the Property without any explanation, or statements by James himself (who, as far as the Court is aware, has no training or experience that bears on whether the dangers on the Property are "obvious") are not admissible. Documents showing that, for example, the septic system was repaired in 1988, shed no light on the conditions of the Property on October 30, 2002. The APS Defendants are, therefore, simply requesting that the Court reaffirm its statements within the Order regarding the irrelevancy or the inadmissibility of these documents and/or testimony. I. Photographs The APS Defendants previously provided objections to the photographs provided by Plaintiff in support of his response to the APS Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings/Motion for Summary Judgment. The APS Defendants have

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

GAONA LAW FIRM

2 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 178 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3101 North Central Avenue ­ Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

objected to the relevance of and the foundation for these pictures because they were not taken at the time that Plaintiff's electrical service was terminated, but were apparently taken nearly three years later in August 2005; thus, they do not accurately depict the condition of Plaintiff's electrical system when his power was terminated. Also, as argued previously, Plaintiff fails to provide any foundation for these pictures or foundation for any of the opinions or conclusions provided. Plaintiff's conclusions concerning the pictures are merely his own and are not supported by an affidavit of a licensed electrician.1 This Court should reaffirm its findings of irrelevancy or

inadmissibility (see Order at page 26, footnote 13) and preclude these photographs. II. Documents from Wickenburg Pump & Electric The APS Defendants also previously objected to documents from Wickenburg Pump & Electric, submitted by Plaintiff in response to summary judgment. Plaintiff submitted documents from 1988, regarding alleged electrical work performed on Plaintiff's property, and from 1995, regarding an invoice for work performed on Plaintiff's septic tanks. See Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Facts at ¶¶ 1-14, 22. None of these documents were disclosed by Plaintiff prior to including them in his Separate Statement of Facts. They are untimely and should be excluded on this basis alone. More importantly, though, even if the documents had been timely

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

GAONA LAW FIRM

disclosed, the ones from 1988 are not relevant because they merely demonstrate estimates for electrical work that may (or may not) have been performed more than 13 years prior to Plaintiff's power being terminated. The documents are not relevant to the condition of Plaintiff's electrical system in November 2002 when his service was
1

The APS Defendants are requesting in a separate motion in limine, filed herewith, to preclude any opinions or conclusions by Plaintiff regarding the conditions of his electrical system. 3 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 178 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3101 North Central Avenue ­ Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

terminated. As for the invoice for repairs to Plaintiff's septic tanks, this document (and any other related documents Plaintiff may seek to introduce) simply has no relevance to the issues of notice in this case. III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the APS Defendants respectfully request that this Court preclude: (1) the photographs provided by Plaintiff that were taken of his property, providing no foundation or explanation, several years after the power was terminated; (2) all evidence, documentary or testimonial, of any work performed by Wickenburg Pump & Electric on Plaintiff's property in or around 1988 and 1995. DATED this 22nd day of May, 2006. GAONA LAW FIRM

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

GAONA LAW FIRM

/s/ Nicole Seder Cantelme David F. Gaona Nicole Seder Cantelme Attorneys for APS, Doug McDonald and Donald Wilson

4 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 178 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3101 North Central Avenue ­ Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 22, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: John Masterson, Esq. [email protected] and Jennifer Holsman, Esq. [email protected] Attorneys for La Paz County Defendants I further certify that on May 22, 2006, I mailed a copy of the foregoing document to Plaintiff pro per: James W. Field Post Office Box 248 Salome, Arizona 85348

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

GAONA LAW FIRM

/s/ Nicole Seder Cantelme

5 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 178 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 5 of 5