Case 1:14-cv PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Transcription

1 Case 1:14-cv PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Case 14-cv PAB-NYW ESMERALDO VILLANUEVA ECHON JR; MARIBEL ECHON; and JUSTIN ECHON v. Plaintiffs, WILLIAM SACKETT and LEONIDA SACKETT Defendants. PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 DEFENDANTS CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403, Plaintiffs request an order from the Court prohibiting Defendants from testifying, arguing, or in any way offering their flatly inaccurate, highly prejudicial conspiracy theories about Plaintiffs counsel. 1 RELEVANT BACKGROUND On a number of occasions, Defendants have accused Plaintiffs counsel of lying, promising Plaintiffs that this lawsuit was an easy way to make money, and coercing Plaintiffs to bring this case. Defendants have offered absolutely no basis for these accusations; nor could they since they are, of course, entirely false. Defendants have made these accusations orally in person 1 Counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with Defendants, and Defendants will oppose this motion. 1

2 Case 1:14-cv PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6 and in their filings with the Court. For example, in their response to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, Defendants stated the following: 61. Some Colorado legal lawyer decided I was guilty of everything they could think up. 62. They had to promise the Echon family an easy way to get money, or the Echon family would have never sued me in the first place. 63. The Echon family is easy to convince if a lawyer starts to work on them. Jenifer Rodriguez is a very good one to work on the very poor The prosecution 2 lied to get this case into federal court to start with. Defs. Resp. Mot. Summ. J. at 6-7, ECF No Defendants later conjectured that Plaintiffs have been coerced by three Colorado legal service lawyers. Motion to Dismiss Witnesses at 2, ECF No Defendants continued, in that filing: I do not think the Echons know what the truth is. They have been told by social workers and lawyers that they can get money out of the Sackett family with very little to do or say on their part and told what to say and how to say it. The lawyers put in the words for them. Id. at 3. In their motion for default judgment, Defendants stated that they were filing their [m]otion to vacate this case due to officers William Lawson Konvalinka, Caleb Samuel Stewart, and Jenifer Cari Rodriguez lying to get this case into the court. Default Judgment at 1, ECF No. 93. Defendants continued, stating that [t]hese officers of the court are putting lies into place. No way of telling what other lies they have told or will tell just to keep their case.... They have lied to the court and no way of knowing what they have done, how they got their witnesses, what they have promised just to keep this case. Id. at 2. In response to Plaintiffs motion for fees, Defendants stated that Plaintiffs counsel want the court to support their liar type thievery. Defendants filing: The use of the court to 2 Defendants occasionally refer to Plaintiffs counsel as the prosecution. 2

3 Case 1:14-cv PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6 sanction lies and attempted to swindle the Sackett Family at 1, ECF No Defendants continued, [t]he longer the prosecution goes on the more lies they think up. Id.at 2. It also bears repeating that Defendants have elected to represent themselves, despite their financial ability to hire a lawyer and the Court s offer of information regarding the Civil Pro Bono Panel. See W. Sackett Dep. Tr. at 8:15 10:3 (explaining Defendants have the resources to hire an attorney but not in cash, then changing answer), ECF No ; Apr. 23, 2015 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order at 2, ECF No. 16; Oct. 1, 2015 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order, ECF No. 52. The Court has discussed the applicable rules with Defendants and has provided copies of the Local Rules and Judge Brimmer s practice standards. Oct. 1, 2015 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order, ECF No. 52. Defendants, of course, are held to the same rules as represented parties, of which the Court has reminded Defendants multiple times. See Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 957 (10th Cir. 2002); Nov. 30, 2015 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order at 2, ECF No. 59; Jan. 27, 2016 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order at 2, ECF No. 63 ( [T]his is the fourth time on the record that the court has advised Defendants that even as pro se litigants, they need to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and conduct themselves accordingly. ). STANDARD Evidence must be relevant to be admissible in court. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. The Court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid

4 Case 1:14-cv PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6 ARGUMENT Defendants inflammatory and conspiracy theories about Plaintiffs counsel are wholly irrelevant and, if presented at trial, would be irreversibly prejudicial to the jury. Defendants have concocted a story about why this case is in court and who is responsible. That story is untethered completely from reality. To say the least, it would be unfairly prejudicial if Defendants are allowed to argue, without any evidence, that the Echon family is easy to convince if a lawyer starts to work on them or that Colorado Legal Services promise[d] the Echon family an easy way to get money, or the Echon family would have never sued me in the first place. Defs. Resp. Mot. Summ. J. at 6-7, ECF No The same is true if Defendants are allowed to argue or enter into evidence again without any basis their belief that Plaintiffs counsel are lying and using the Court for liar type thievery. Defendants filing: The use of the court to sanction lies and attempted to swindle the Sackett Family at 1, ECF No Defendants clearly believe they are right on the merits of this case. But that view does not give Defendants free reign to offer baseless accusations that could taint the jury beyond repair. Whatever the reason for Defendants invented accusations, allowing those seeds to be planted at trial has the potential to permanently prejudice the jury and poison them against Plaintiffs counsel. These allegations, however firmly Defendants may hold them, are irrelevant and prejudicial and should be excluded from trial under Rules 401, 402, and 403. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, Plaintiffs request that the Court prohibit Defendants from offering their conspiracy theories about Plaintiffs counsel. 4

5 Case 1:14-cv PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6 Respectfully submitted this 12th day of January, s/ Matthew R. Baca Jenifer Rodriguez Matthew R. Baca Colorado Legal Services 1905 Sherman Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO (303) / (f) (303) mbaca@colegalserv.org jrodriguez@colegalserv.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5

6 Case 1:14-cv PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 12th day of January, 2018, I served the foregoing Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 1 with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, in addition to sending a hard copy directly to Defendants via US Mail at the following address: William Sackett HWY 50 E Rocky Ford, CO Leonida Sackett HWY 50 E Rocky Ford, CO s/ Matthew R. Baca Matthew R. Baca 6