Desantis et al., v. City of Santa Rosa et al.

Filing 201

ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 9/4/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

PATRICIA DESANTIS, et al.,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiffs,

No. C 07-03386 JSW

v.
CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al.,

ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

Defendants.
/

14
15

Now before the Court are several administrative motions filed Defendants. Defendants

16

move for a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the fact that Richard DeSantis was unarmed

17

when he was shot by the defendant officers. Defendants argue that such evidence is irrelevant

18

because evidence that was not available to the defendant officers at the time of the incident and,

19

thus, is not relevant to the objective excessive force inquiry. See Sherrod v. Berry, 856 F.2d

20

802, 807 (7th Cir. 1988). Plaintiffs argue that the evidence that DeSantis was unarmed is

21

relevant to support the credibility of Plaintiff Patricia DeSantis’ testimony that she patted down

22

DeSantis and told the officers that he was not armed. The Court finds that the evidence that

23

DeSantis was unarmed may be relevant, depending upon what other evidence is submitted into

24

the record. Additionally, unless and until Plaintiffs seek to admit such evidence and it is clear

25

for what purpose the evidence is offered, ruling upon any limiting instruction is premature.

26

Therefore, the Court RESERVES RULING on Defendants’ motion. However, because it is not

27

yet clear whether such evidence will be admissible, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that

28

Plaintiffs shall not mention evidence of the fact that DeSantis was, in fact, not armed in their
opening statement. This ruling does not preclude Plaintiffs from describing the anticipated

1

testimony from Patricia DeSantis regarding what she told the officers and what she did at the

2

scene.

3

Defendants also move the Court to reconsider its ruling that the drug found in DeSantis’

4

body during his autopsy is relevant because the drug contributed to his erratic behavior.

5

However, as Defendants argue in connection with their motion for a limiting jury instruction

6

regarding the fact that DeSantis was unarmed, the fact that DeSantis had Delta 9_THC in his

7

blood and MTA in his urine is not relevant to what the defendant officers knew at the time of

8

the incident. The fact that the presence of these drugs was detected in his body during the

9

autopsy was not known to the defendant officers at the time of the incident and, thus, is not
relevant to the excessive force inquiry. Moreover, the Court finds that allowing Defendants to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

rely on expert testimony disclosed just before trial would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiffs.

12

Defendants were aware of the Court’s ruling on this motion in limine at the pretrial conference

13

held on July 3, 2012. Defendants have not provided any explanation as to why they waited

14

almost two months, until just a week before trial, to seek to introduce this new expert testimony.

15

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for an in camera hearing to admit

16

evidence of drugs detected in DeSantis during the autopsy.

17

Defendants also move for the Court to rule on Defendants’ evidentiary objections to

18

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 - a graphic prepared to support the testimony of one of Plaintiffs’ experts.

19

Defendants contend that this exhibit was not produced as part of the expert report and is based

20

on insufficient or inaccurate data. Plaintiffs counter that Defendants may cross-examine to

21

attack the sufficiency or accuracy of this exhibit. The Court DENIES Defendants’ request for

22

an in camera review. Defendants’ objections go to the weight of the evidence, and not its

23

admissibility. Defendants may supplement their witness list with Kevan Kurt and Darin

24

Dougherty as rebuttal witnesses, but Defendants will not be provided any additional time.

25

The Court had reserved ruling on Defendants’ motion in limine number 1 to exclude

26

images of DeSantis after his death as inflammatory and unduly prejudicial. After the parties’

27

efforts to meet and confer, Defendants’ still assert objections to Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1-2 (8976),

28
2

1

1-3 (8974), 1-8 (8988), 1-9 (8987), 1-10 (8983), and 1-28 (8903). The Court OVERRULES

2

Defendants’ objections to these exhibits.

3

On September 4, 2012, Defendants filed another administrative motion to quash the

4

subpoenas served by Plaintiffs on July 17, 2012 and August 30, 2012 and to have this motion

5

heard on shortened time. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to have this administrative

6

motion heard on shortened time. No response from Plaintiffs is necessary. The Court

7

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion. The Court DENIES

8

Defendants’ request to quash the subpoenas in full, but GRANTS the request that the

9

production be limited to a single exemplar of each category. The Court FURTHER ORDERS
that the parties shall meet and confer regarding rendering the weapons safe and inoperable

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

while the weapons are in the Court.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: September 4, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3