Buy This Entire Record For
Bevan v. Valencia
United States District Court, D. New Mexico
September 4, 2018
AEVIEE BEVAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Desiree Gonzales, deceased, Plaintiff,
GABRIEL VALENCIA, Youth Development Admin., Individually; MATTHEW EDMUNDS, Corrections Officer, Individually; JOHN ORTEGA, Corrections Officer, Individually; MOLLY ARCHULETA, Corrections Nurse, Individually; ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL; and NATHAN PAUL UNKEFER, M.D., Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE TAKEN UNDER
August 29, 2018, the Court heard argument on numerous motions
in limine, some of which the Court took under advisement.
See (Doc.370). Lee Hunt represented Plaintiff at the
hearing while Mark Komer represented County Defendants,
Steven Gonzales represented Defendant Molly Archuleta, and
Thomas Mack and Jason Yamato represented Defendant Nathan
Paul Unkefer, M.D.
reviewed the motions in limine which the Court took under
advisement, the responses to those motions, the argument of
counsel at the August 29, 2018, hearing, the Court ORDERS as
1. Nathan Unkefer, M.D. 's Motion In Limine to Bar
Questions to Dr. Unkefer Regarding Learning Treatises (Doc.
259), filed July 10, 2018, is denied without prejudice
to raising the motion at trial;
2. (a) Nathan Paul Unkefer M.D. 's Motion in Limine
to Bar Testimony Interpreting Video Surveillance (Doc. 261),
filed July 10, 2018;
(b) St. Vincent's Motion in Limine to Bar Testimony
Regarding Video Surveillance (Doc. 266), filed July 10, 2018;
(c) County Individual's Motion in Limine Concerning
Expert Testimony About Video Evidence (Doc. 279), filed July
The Court grants, in part, these three motions to the extent
that Plaintiff cannot elicit expert testimony interpreting or
explaining the surveillance video while simultaneously
playing the surveillance video. Plaintiffs experts, however,
can testify as to whether they viewed the surveillance video
and to what in the surveillance video informed their expert
opinions. The Court further denies the motions without
prejudice to raising these motions at trial as they may
relate to lay opinion testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 701(b).
3. Defendant St. Vincent Hospital's Motion in Limine
Regarding Discrete Trial Evidentiary Issues (Doc. 262),
filed July 10, 2018.
The Court has already granted the motion as to references to
the "conscience of the community." To the extent
necessary, the Court denies the remainder of the motion
without prejudice to raising the motion at trial.
4. Defendant St. Vincent Hospital's Motion In Limine
to Exclude Testimony Concerning Other Providers and
Subsequent Admission (Doc. 267), filed July 10, 2018, is
granted, in part, in that Plaintiff may only elicit testimony
and other evidence relevant to the claims against Defendant
Unkefer arising from Desiree Gonzales' second admission
to St. Vincent Hospital on May 8, 2014.
5. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence
and Argument Regarding Desiree Gonzales's Parents'
Actions After Her Death (Doc. 274), filed July 13, 2018,
is granted, in part, as follows:
First, only Janel Gonzales may testify regarding the
agreement to divide the proceeds from this lawsuit, if she
has personal knowledge of the agreement.
Second, testimony and evidence related to the state personal