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

Filing 216

ORDER re Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 10, 2012. (jswlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2012)

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
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN
LIMINE NO. 2

Defendants.
/

14
15

At the pretrial conference, the Court granted Defendants’ motion in limine No. 2 to

16

exclude evidence of prior or subsequent “use of force” acts by the City and/or individual officer

17

defendants. In support of and in response to this motion, both Defendants and Plaintiffs focused

18

on a particular incident by Defendant Richard Celli in the Thurston v. Santa Rose Police Dept.,

19

Case No. 08-1115 CRB (“Thurston case”). The Court found that the facts of Thurston were too

20

dissimilar from this matter to be relevant to the Monell claim here. The Court further noted that

21

the trial court in Thurston granted summary judgment for the defendants on the grounds that the

22

plaintiff had not demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the use

23

of excessive force. On this basis, the Court granted Defendants’ motion in limine. The Court is

24

willing to reconsider its ruling to exclude all evidence of prior “use of force” acts, if Plaintiffs

25

submit a offer of proof to demonstrate the existence of specific prior incidents in which officers

26

used excessive force and were not disciplined.

27

The Court notes that Plaintiffs contend that the prior chief of police had a policy of

28

disciplining use of force only if the officers’ use of force was criminal beyond a reasonable

the moving force behind Plaintiffs’ alleged constitutional violation here. See Blair v. City of

3

Pomona, 223 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474

4

(9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, Plaintiffs must show that there were actual incidents in which

5

officers used excessive force and were not disciplined, according to this stated policy.

6

Otherwise, if no officers ever used excessive force, then this alleged incorrect policy would not

7

have caused any constitutional violation here. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS

8

Plaintiffs to file an offer of proof by no later than 7:00 a.m. on September 11, 2012. In this

9

offer of proof, Plaintiffs shall describe the facts of any alleged prior incidents in which officers

10

used excessive force and what evidence Plaintiffs seek to admit to prove these alleged incidents

11
For the Northern District of California

doubt. However, even if that was the prior police chief’s policy, such a policy must have been

2

United States District Court

1

of excessive force. The Court further notes that Plaintiffs must show that any alleged prior

12

incidents of excessive force are similar to the facts alleged in this matter.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: September 10, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2