Edwards v. Cabral et al

Filing 123

ORDER Following Telephonic Hearing Held on April 5, 2016; ORDER Addressing Motions in Limine and Other Pending Motions re 97 , 100 , 103 , 104 , 107 , 112 , 113 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/20/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVEN R. EDWARDS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

1:13-cv-00345-EPG-PC
ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC
HEARING HELD ON APRIL 5, 2016

vs.

14

R. BRATTON and

15

D. CABRAL,

16

ORDER ADDRESSING MOTIONS IN
LIMINE AND OTHER PENDING
MOTIONS
(ECF Nos. 97, 100, 103, 104, 107, 112, 113.)

Defendants.
Jury Trial: May 3, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.
Courtroom 10 (EPG)

17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

This civil rights action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, proceeds on the initial

21

Complaint filed pro se by state prisoner Steven R. Edwards (“Plaintiff”) on March 11, 2013,

22

against defendants R. Bratton (LVN) and D. Cabral (Psychiatric Technician) (collectively,

23

“Defendants”), for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (ECF No.

24

1.) This case is presently set for trial on May 3, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.

25
26
27
28

1

On June 12, 2013 and June 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed notices of his willingness to proceed only
against defendants Bratton, Cabral, Escorto, and Pascual, for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. (ECF
Nos. 9, 11.) On July 17, 2015, summary judgment was granted to defendants Escorto and Pascual. (ECF No. 73.)
On March 17, 2016, the Court’s pretrial order dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action. (ECF
No. 102 at 2 n.1.) Therefore, this case now proceeds only against defendants Bratton and Cabral for deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs.
1

1

The parties to this action have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge

2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c). (ECF Nos. 77, 83.) Therefore, Magistrate Judge Erica P.

3

Grosjean shall conduct any and all further proceedings in the case, including trial and entry of

4

final judgment.

5

II.

APRIL 5, 2016 TELEPHONIC MOTIONS IN LIMINE HEARING

6

On April 5, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., a telephonic hearing was held before Magistrate Judge

7

Erica P. Grosjean to hear the parties’ motions in limine and other pending motions.2 Plaintiff

8

appeared telephonically on his own behalf, and Deputy California Attorney General R.

9

Lawrence Bragg appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendants.

10

A.

11

Defendants’ Motions In Limine
1.

Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses

12

Defendants seek to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witnesses at trial because Plaintiff has not

13

complied with Rule 26(a)(2), which requires disclosure of expert witnesses, and it is too late for

14

him to do so. In the alternative, Defendants request the Court to limit testimony of any of

15

Plaintiff’s experts to opinions shown to have been formed in the course of their treatment of

16

Plaintiff.

17

Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party to “disclose to the

18

other parties the identity of any [expert] witness it may use at trial to present evidence” and

19

“must make these disclosures at the times and in the sequence that the court orders [or] absent a

20

stipulation or a court order, . . at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be

21

ready for trial.” Fed. R. Civ P. 26(a)(2)(A),(D).

22

Defendants’ motion in limine is granted. Here, Plaintiff listed only three witnesses in

23

his pretrial statement, inmates Hussein Ali, Van-Albert Siegrist, and Thomas Fouquet, none

24

which are expert witnesses. Plaintiff conceded that he that he did not disclose any expert

25
26
27
28

2

On February 22, 2016, March 18, 2016, and March 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions in limine
(ECF Nos. 97, 103, 113), and on March 9, 2016, Defendants filed motions in limine (ECF No. 100). On March
18, 2016, and March 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions for the issuance of a subpoena compelling Dr. Berard’s
attendance at trial. (ECF Nos. 104, 112.) On March 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of a
video recording. (ECF No. 107.)
2

1

witnesses but says that he did ask the Court to appoint an impartial expert for both parties to

2

use. Plaintiff wants Dr. Berard to be a witness, but only for what he saw, did, and prescribed

3

for Plaintiff.

4

Given the Plaintiff did not disclose any expert witnesses under Rule 26(a)(2), this

5

motion in limine is granted. Plaintiff’s request for a Court-appointed expert to be used by all

6

parties is denied as untimely, and because an expert is not necessary to ensure accurate

7

factfinding by the Court on the issues in this case, which concern whether Defendants were

8

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and whether Plaintiff was injured.

9

2.

Motion Limiting Plaintiff’s Testimony

10

Defendants seek to preclude testimony by Plaintiff under Rule 701 about his opinions or

11

inferences referring to causation, diagnosis, or the nature and extent of his injuries.

12

Defendants also seek to preclude testimony by Plaintiff offering opinions or inferences based

13

on any medical records.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of
an opinion is limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witness's perception;
(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to
determining a fact in issue; and
(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
Fed. R. Evid. 701.

22

Defendants’ motion in limine is granted in part and denied in part. The Court shall

23

determine the admissibility of Plaintiff’s medical testimony at trial on a question by question

24

basis, evaluated under Rule 701. Plaintiff may testify about what he felt, the extent of any

25

injuries, and any opinions about causation based on his personal observation and perception.

26

However, Plaintiff is not permitted to give scientific or medical opinions or interpret medical

27

records that require expert testimony or specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

28

Plaintiff may testify about the causation of injuries as shown by what happened to him after the
3

1

incident. In closing arguments, Plaintiff may discuss his injuries as they relate to his request

2

for damages. Plaintiff is permitted to cross-examine Defendants’ expert witness. Plaintiff may

3

discuss past incidents when he was sprayed with pepper spray, and what treatment he received

4

for the effects of pepper spray. This does not open up the question of why Plaintiff was pepper

5

sprayed in the past. Plaintiff is not precluded from making an argument that delay caused his

6

eye injuries.

7

3.

Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Presentation of Medical Records

8

Defendants object to Plaintiff submitting his medical records as evidence, on grounds of

9

lack of foundation, irrelevance, and inadmissible hearsay. Defendants argue that Plaintiff

10

cannot provide a proper foundation because he lacks personal knowledge of the content of the

11

records, and if he cannot lay a foundation, the evidence is not relevant to the issues in the case.

12

Defendants also argue that the medical records contain medical opinions, which can only be

13

offered by a medical expert. In addition, Defendants argue that reading the medical records

14

will confuse the jury, who will render conclusions not based on scientific knowledge or fact.

15

Plaintiff asserts that he intends the medical records to speak only to where he was, who

16

he saw, on what day, what was done, and what he received. Plaintiff argues that the jury

17

should be allowed to see the medical records and ask their own questions.

18

The Court overruled Defendants’ lack of foundation objection. Plaintiff may testify

19

about his medical records with the foundation that they are his medical records, and the records

20

themselves concern information given through medical assessment. The Court also overruled

21

Defendants’ objections on the basis of relevance and hearsay, ruling that the medical records

22

fall under the hearsay exception in Rule 803(6) for records of regularly conducted activity.

23

4.

24

Motion to Limit Questions Concerning Personnel Matters, Prior
Complaints About Job Performance, and Prior Disciplinary Issues
Related to Defendants

25

Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from questioning them about any matters in their

26

personnel records, because California law provides for confidentiality of peace officer

27

personnel records. Defendants argue that while federal law is controlling, state law is relevant

28

where one of the elements of the federal claim is that the actor was acting under color of state
4

1

law, and the official information privilege used in federal court is consistent with California

2

statutes.

3

irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and character evidence is not admissible, would be misleading,

4

and would be unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.

Defendants also argue that other inmates’ complaints against Defendants are

5

Plaintiff argues that medical personnel do not have the same privileges as peace

6

officers, and Plaintiff asserts that he is not seeking personal information. Plaintiff only seeks to

7

ask whether allegations of medical claims have ever been filed against them.

8
9
10

Rule 404(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to
prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular
occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

11

This motion in limine is granted. Under Rule 404(b), Plaintiff may not use evidence of

12

past bad acts by Defendants to prove that those past acts show that Defendants are more likely

13

to act in the same way.

14
15

Motion to Preclude Evidence of Defendants’ Financial Condition
Until and Unless the Trier of Fact Determines that Punitive
Damages are Appropriate

16

Defendants seek to bifurcate the trial on the issue of punitive damages, and assert that

17

under federal law, Defendants bear the burden of proving financial worth when arguing in

18

mitigation of damages. Defendants argue that it is unfair to require Defendants to choose

19

between divulging their personal assets to an inmate and properly defending themselves.

20

Defendants argue that they should be permitted to reserve testimony as to their financial worth

21

until after any entitlement to punitive damages has been established.

22

23

5.

Plaintiff asserts that the matter of bifurcation was already decided at the February 18,
2016 hearing on Judge Grosjean.3

24

This motion in limine is granted. The trial shall be bifurcated on the issue of the amount

25

of punitive damages, if any. Evidence of Defendants’ financial condition in the initial part of

26
27
28

3

In fact, the Court made a tentative ruling at the February 18, 2016 hearing to separate the
punitive damages phase from the trial, and Defendants were advised to bring this issue in a motion in limine.
(ECF No. 102 at 23 ¶XV.)
5

1

the trial is not relevant and would be more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403. The

2

amount of punitive damages, if any, is a question for the second part of the trial.

3

B.

4

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
1.

5

Motion to Suppress Evidence of Circumstances of Plaintiff’s
Incarceration

6

Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence of circumstances of his incarceration, arguing that

7

his criminal record has no relevance to this Court proceeding, lacks foundation, is unfairly

8

prejudicial, and lacks any probative value. Such evidence includes abstracts of judgment

9

representing Plaintiff’s and his inmate witnesses’ felony convictions and sentences, crime

10

incident reports, 115 Rules Violation Reports, transcripts of Plaintiff’s deposition and

11

discovery responses provided in Plaintiff’s other case 1:13-cv-1013-SAB-PC (Edwards v.

12

Desfosses), referral of the incident to the District Attorney’s office on December 14, 2012, and

13

photos of Building A-2 where the staff assault incident occurred.

14

Defendants argue that under Rule 609, evidence of felony convictions are admissible to

15

attack a witness’s character for truthfulness. This evidence includes the essential facts of the

16

conviction, such as the statutory name of each offense, the date of conviction, and the sentence

17

imposed. Defendants assert that they do not plan to present evidence of the circumstances of

18

the crimes.

19

With respect to the incident report Plaintiff seeks to exclude, Defendants assert that it

20

contains a statement from C/O Desfosses, whom Plaintiff and Defendants have both listed as a

21

potential witness. Also the report is relevant to explain the circumstances of LVN Bratton’s

22

examination of Plaintiff and to rebut Plaintiff’s claims that the video interview on July 17, 2012

23

is false. Furthermore, the RVR contains a statement attributed to Plaintiff concerning the July

24

17, 2012 incident and could be used for impeachment purposes.

25

Defendants state that they do not intend to delve into the details of commitment

26

offenses or the referral of the incident to the Fresno County District Attorney. However, they

27

argue that they are entitled to use Plaintiff’s discovery responses and deposition transcript to

28

///
6

1

show inconsistencies, and the issues in Plaintiff’s other case, 1:13-cv-1013-SAB-PC (Edwards

2

v. Desfosses), overlap with the issues in this case.

3

Defendants state that they do not intend to introduce photographs of Building A-2,

4

where the alleged assault took place, and therefore Plaintiff’s motion in limine as to the photos

5

should be denied as moot.

6

Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides, in part:

7

(a)

8

In General. The following rules apply to attacking a
witness’s character for truthfulness by evidence of a
criminal conviction:

9

(1)

10

for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was
punishable by death or by imprisonment for more
than one year, the evidence:

11

(A)

must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a
civil case or in a criminal case in which the
witness is not a defendant; and

(B)

must be admitted in a criminal case in
which the witness is a defendant, if the
probative value of the evidence outweighs
its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and

12
13
14
15

(2)

16
17
18

(b)

19
20
21

for any crime regardless of the punishment, the
evidence must be admitted if the court can readily
determine that establishing the elements of the
crime required proving — or the witness’s
admitting — a dishonest act or false statement.

Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This
subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed
since the witness’s conviction or release from
confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the
conviction is admissible only if:
(1)

its probative value, supported by specific facts and
circumstances, substantially outweighs its
prejudicial effect; and

(2)

22

the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable
written notice of the intent to use it so that the
party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.

23
24
25
26

This motion in limine is granted in part and denied in part. The Court shall allow

27

Defendants to introduce evidence of the fact that Plaintiff had one or more felony convictions

28

///
7

1

in the past ten years. However, evidence of the particular crimes for which Plaintiff was

2

convicted is not allowed, as this evidence is more prejudicial than probative.

3

With respect to Rules Violation Reports, the Court found that they are generally

4

excluded as evidence because they are an opinion based on a proceeding and are not evidence

5

from a percipient witness, and they are also hearsay. Moreover, making conclusions about

6

what happened and who was to blame to the extent relevant is the province of the jury.

7

Defendants argued that there are portions of the report that fall under hearsay

8

objections, such as for impeachment or to refresh a recollection. The Court ruled that it will

9

reserve its ruling on such limited exceptions until trial on a question by question basis;

10

however, the parties are cautioned not to refer to the Rules Violation Report until further ruling

11

on a limited basis.

12

2.

Motion to Add Evidence Against the Defendants

13

Plaintiff requests the Court to compel Defendants to turn over the video tape or

14

recording of the cameras pointed directly at the A-Yard program office at PVSP on July 17,

15

2012. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not allowed him to view the video, which would

16

prove that defendant Bratton came and went from the office but not at the time reported by

17

Bratton.

18

Plaintiff also brings a motion in limine requesting that the video be presented at trial (or

19

before trial), so Plaintiff can determine if it is a true and authentic version. Plaintiff argues that

20

Defendants were required to preserve the video recordings.

21

Defendants argue that the video recordings of the A-Yard program office sought by

22

Plaintiff never existed, and to the extent Plaintiff’s motion is a motion to compel, it is untimely.

23

Defendants assert there were no video cameras located in areas to capture recordings of the A-

24

Yard program office on July 17, 2012.

25
26

The Court denied both Plaintiff’s motion to compel and related motion in limine, based
on Defendants’ assertion under oath that the A-Yard video sought by Plaintiff does not exist.

27

However, Defendants agreed to provide authenticated copies of existing video

28

recordings made of Plaintiff from July 17, 2012 to August 21, 2012. Defendants shall provide
8

1

copies to the Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison, where Plaintiff is incarcerated,

2

for Plaintiff’s viewing.

3

3.

Motion to Exclude Irrelevant Testimony of Defendant LVN Bratton

4

Plaintiff moves to exclude evidence of the telephone call that LVN Bratton made to RN

5

Lewis on July 17, 2012, on the ground that there is no evidence that she did or did not make the

6

call. Plaintiff argues that RN Lewis is the only one who should testify to the phone call, and

7

that LVN Bratton should not be allowed to testify to what RN Lewis told her, because it is

8

hearsay.

9

Defendants argue that LVN Bratton’s testimony about her phone call to RN Lewis is

10

not hearsay, because it is relevant to LVN Bratton’s motives and state of mind when she

11

encountered Plaintiff, which is relevant to the section 1983 standard that violation of the Eighth

12

Amendment requires a prison official to show deliberate indifference. Defendants argue that

13

LVN Bratton’s statement is offered to demonstrate that it was made, rather than for the truth of

14

the matter, and so is not hearsay.

15

The Court ruled that LVN Bratton is allowed to testify about what she did, even if there

16

is no corroborating evidence, and Plaintiff may cross-examine her.

17

testimony about the telephone call is not hearsay, but falls under the hearsay exception in Rule

18

801(d)(1), which provides:

19
20
21
22

23

(d)

Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the
following conditions is not hearsay:
(1)

A Declarant-Witness's Prior Statement. The declarant
testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior
statement, and the statement:
(A)

is inconsistent with the declarant's testimony and
was given under penalty of perjury at a trial,
hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;

(B)

is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is
offered:

24
25
26
27
28

The Court held that

(i)

to rebut an express or implied charge that
the declarant recently fabricated it or acted
from a recent improper influence or motive
in so testifying; or
9

(ii)

1
2

(C)

3
4

identifies a person as someone the declarant
perceived earlier.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion in limine is denied.

5
6

to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as
a witness when attacked on another
ground; or

Defendants questioned whether RN Lewis may be a witness at trial. The Court allowed
it and also allowed Defendants to amend their witness list to include RN Lewis.

7

4.

8

Plaintiff Seeks to Exclude Testimony and Medical Opinions as to
Medical Diagnosis by Defendants’ Expert Witness

9

Plaintiff argues that Dr. Barnett cannot look at a piece of paper from another physician

10

and say why or why not the other physician prescribed medication, and cannot testify to what

11

Dr. Wilson or Dr. Berard saw. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Barnett has no experience as an

12

ophthalmologist and cannot testify about Plaintiff’s injuries, how they occurred, or the effects

13

on Plaintiff, nor does Dr. Barnett have expertise in pepper spray. Plaintiff also argues that Dr.

14

Barnett will use his testimony to mislead the jury at trial.

15

Defendants argue that Dr. Barnett’s testimony is admissible because he is a licensed

16

physician with more than thirty years’ experience in Family Medicine, Urgent Care, and

17

Emergency Medicine. Dr. Barnett will testify that he has more than seven years of experience

18

in providing healthcare for inmates incarcerated by CDCR, including inmates exposed to

19

pepper spray and patients with eye complaints. Defendants argue that Dr. Barnett clearly

20

possesses specialized knowledge and experience beyond the average layperson concerning the

21

treatment of eye conditions including exposure to pepper spray, and is qualified as an expert in

22

this field under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Defendants argue that Dr. Barnett

23

is entitled to review Plaintiff’s medical file, interpret Plaintiff’s medical records, and testify

24

accordingly.

25

The Court ruled that Defendants’ expert witness Dr. Barnett is allowed to testify and

26

shall offer evidence of his expertise at trial, where the Court will determine if his medical

27

training allows him to testify about pepper spray. Thus, this motion is resolved.

28

///
10

5.

1

Plaintiff’s Request for Issuance of Subpoena to Compel Dr. Berard
to Appear as a Witness and Testify at Trial on Plaintiff’s Behalf

2

Plaintiff requests that Dr. Berard testify about his treatment of Plaintiff’s eye problems

3

relevant to this case. Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Berard is an ophthalmologist, is aware that

4

Plaintiff has glaucoma, and can explain the effects that pepper spray would have on a person

5

with Plaintiff’s condition.

6

The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for issuance of a subpoena, based on Plaintiff’s

7

testimony that he cannot afford to pay the witness fees required to subpoena Dr. Berard to

8

testify at trial.

9

C.

10

Other Issues
1.

Depositions and Discovery Responses From Plaintiff’s Other Case

11

Under Rule 801(d)(2), the Court ruled that evidence from Plaintiff’s other case in this

12

court, 1:13-cv-0103-SAB-PC (Edwards v. Desfosses), shall not be allowed except under

13

limited exceptions. Rule 801(d)(2) provides:

14
15
16
17

(d)

Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following
conditions is not hearsay:
...
(2)

An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an
opposing party and:

18

(A)

was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

19

(B)

is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;

20

(C)

was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a
statement on the subject;

(D)

was made by the party's agent or employee on a matter within the
scope of that relationship and while it existed; or

(E)

was made by the party's coconspirator during and in furtherance
of the conspiracy.

21
22

23
24
25

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). The Court held that relevance will be strictly construed. No questions

26

about testimony from Plaintiff’s other trial are permitted.

27

information about Plaintiff’s other trial or reveal that Plaintiff lost the other trial, which is not

28

relevant and would be prejudicial to Plaintiff.
11

The parties may not divulge

Statements made by opposing parties in

1

deposition testimony and discovery responses in Plaintiff’s other case may be admissible, to the

2

extent that they are relevant to this case under Rule 801(d)(2). Plaintiff may not offer details or

3

assign blame based on his other case, but may generally refer to an incident that led to him

4

being pepper-sprayed.

5

2.

Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits

6

Plaintiff seeks to add more trial exhibits. The Court allowed Plaintiff to submit a

7

request to the Court, with the proposed exhibits attached for the Court’s review or with

8

explanation that Defendants are already in possession of them. To be considered by the Court,

9

such request must be submitted promptly after the April 5, 2016 hearing.

10
11
12

III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

13
14

The parties’ motions in limine, and other pending motions and requests, are
RESOLVED by this order as discussed above; and

2.

15

This case is set for jury trial on May 3, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. before Magistrate
Judge Erica P. Grosjean.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 20, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
12