CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, United States District Judge
The matter before the Court, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, United States District Judge, presiding, is Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 5. Defendants filed this motion on May 24, 2002. Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 10, 2002. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the parties' papers, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion.
DISCUSSION
Defendants move the Court to exclude evidence of post-incident conspiracy because "implicit in this assertion is the presumption that a failure to discipline the officers — after the fact — could have somehow caused the subject incident to occur." Motion at 12. The government's reaction to incidents involving its police is important evidence of the policy. Grandstaff v. City of Borger 767 F.2d 161 (5th Cir. 1985); see also, Patzner v. Burkett 799 F.2d 1363, 1367 (8th Cir. 1985); McRorie v. Shimoda 795 F.2d 780, 784 (9th Cir. 1986). The evidence is clearly relevant.
Defendants also argue that this evidence alone is inadequate to establish a policy. However, this argument does not address the admissibility, but rather the sufficiency of Plaintiff's evidence.
Defendants cite Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept. 839 F.2d 621 (9th Cir. 1986) to argue that claims of a conspiracy and cover-up are premature and not ripe for judicial consideration until resolution of the underlying suit. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles involved a motion to dismiss a complaint, not a motion to exclude evidence. In that case, Plaintiff argued that the destruction of evidence and documents caused an obstruction of justice. Precedent indicated that success on his underlying claim would moot the obstruction of justice claim. The case is inapplicable to the current case.
Evidence of a post-incident cover-up is relevant to Plaintiff's Monell claim. The Court finds that its prejudicial impact would not substantially outweigh its probative value.
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion.