Case 2:10-cv-01663-ROS Document 131 Filed 08/16/13 Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before this court are three fully briefed motions in limine, (Docs. 105, 106, and 107.) The Court has carefully considered the parties arguments. First, Defendants argue that a series of nine articles published in the East Valley Tribune in 2008 titled Reasonable Doubt: At What Cost? and a policy report issued by the Goldwater Institute in 2008 titled Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office should be precluded as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The Court agrees. (Doc. 105.) Only relevant evidence is admissible at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Even relevant evidence may be excluded if it misleads the jury, confuses the issues, creates unfair prejudice to a party, wastes time, or is needlessly cumulative. See Fed .R. Evid. 403. Maricopa County, et al., Defendants. v. Randy Parraz, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV-10-01663-PHX-ROS PROPOSED ORDER

Case 2:10-cv-01663-ROS Document 131 Filed 08/16/13 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Both the articles and the report appear to be irrelevant to Plaintiffs claims. Even if they are not irrelevant, however, they are unduly prejudicial to Defendant. Therefore, they will be precluded from trial. Second, Defendants seek to exclude testimony regarding the arrests of five members of Maricopa Citizens for Safety and Accountability (MCSA) who were arrested for disrupting a December 17, 2008 Board of Supervisors meeting, as well as a court order awarding attorneys fees to those individuals. (Doc. 107.) The Court finds the testimony to be relevant and not unduly prejudicial. The court orderwhich includes language that is harshly critical of the County Attorney and the Sheriffs deputy who made the arrestis unduly prejudicial. Therefore the testimony about the arrests will be permitted but the court order regarding attorneys fees will not. Finally, Defendants seek to exclude a December 15, 2011 letter from Thomas Perez, an attorney with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (DOJ) to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery discussing the findings of a DOJ investigation. (Doc. 107.) The relevant portion of the letter addresses specific findings, as a result of an extensive investigation, that MSCO retaliates against individuals who criticize its police practices. (Doc. 111-1.) The DOJ letter identified multiple examples of MSCO engaging in retaliation against those who opposed MCSOs policies or practices and specifically cites retaliation against MCSA members. (Id.) Defendants argue, among other things, that the DOJ letter is hearsay while Plaintiff argues that it qualifies for the exception to hearsay set by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(A)(iii). Rule 803 provides an exception to the rule against hearsay where a record or statement of a public office sets out factual findings from a legally authorized investigation and neither the source of information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Fed. R. Evid.803(8)(A)(iii). The Court is inclined to permit the relevant portion of the DOJ letter. Defendants are encouraged to attempt to persuade the Court otherwise by providing an argument

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-01663-ROS Document 131 Filed 08/16/13 Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

citing legal authority addressing similar DOJ letters. Dated this 16th day of August, 2013.

-3-