Canas et al v. City of Sunnyvale et al

Filing 145

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting in part and denying in part 115 Motion in Limine; granting 116 Motion in Limine; dismissing 117 Motion in Limine; granting 118 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 119 Motion in Limine; denying 120 Motion in Limine; denying 121 Motion in Limine; granting 122 Motion in Limine; denying 123 Motion in Limine; dismissing 124 Motion in Limine; granting 128 Motion in Limine. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

ERIKA CANAS, et. al,

6
7
8
9

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SUNNYVALE, et al.,

NO. C08-5771 TEH
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

After carefully considering the parties’ written arguments on their motions in limine,

14 the Court finds oral argument to be unnecessary and now rules as follows:
15

Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-4 are GRANTED as unopposed.

16

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

17 PART. The Court’s September 5, 2012 order on trial procedures sets out the processes by
18 which the parties are to advise opposing counsel and the Court of documents they plan to
19 introduce and witnesses they plan to call during the trial. The parties are directed to abstain
20 from referring, in the presence of the jury, to any document not yet admitted into evidence
21 until opposing counsel has had an opportunity to request a hearing on the document’s
22 admissibility. Any such hearing shall take place outside the presence of the jury. If a party
23 challenges the admissibility of evidence, Counsel shall not refer to that evidence or display it
24 to the jury, until the Court has issued a ruling on its admissibility.
25

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 is GRANTED as unopposed. Counsel is hereby

26 ordered to instruct all witnesses, except those witnesses who are parties to this action, not to
27 enter the courtroom until called to testify. Counsel shall further instruct witnesses not to
28 mention this restriction, or the fact that this motion has been filed, in court.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 is DISMISSED by consent of the parties.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4, seeking to exclude the resumes and written
reports of all the retained experts in this action, is GRANTED. Federal Rules of Evidence
702 and 703 permit experts to testify to their opinions and to rely on inadmissible hearsay in
forming the bases of those opinions, but they do not permit the introduction into evidence of
documents containing expert opinions when offered for the truth of the matters addressed in
those documents. The resumes and written reports do not appear to fall under any exception
to the hearsay rule. Since the experts will testify at trial to their qualifications and to the
matters addressed in their reports, it is not necessary to admit their resumes and written
reports, which lack any independent guarantee of trustworthiness.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5, seeking to bar testimony by Plaintiffs’ expert,
Roger Clark, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In their opposition, Plaintiffs
indicated that the parties had agreed that Clark would be deposed during the week of
September 3, 2012; Defendants’ request to exclude Clark’s testimony because Plaintiffs
failed to produce him for deposition therefore appears to be moot. Defendants otherwise fail
to argue with sufficient specificity why the Court should bar the entirety of Clark’s proposed
testimony. The motion therefore is DENIED insofar as Defendants seek to exclude Clark’s
testimony in its entirety.
Defendants’ request to bar Clark’s testimony about the reasonableness of the officers’
conduct and about whether they acted recklessly or dangerously is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. In a civil case, “[a]n opinion is not objectionable just because it
embraces an ultimate issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 704(a). However, legal conclusions, such as
whether or not the officers’ use of force was reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes, are
not appropriate topics of expert testimony. See Aguilar v. Int’l Longsoremen’s Union, 966
F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court may revisit whether Clark’s testimony meets the
requirements of Rule 702 based on the testimony presented at trial.

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Defendants’ request to bar Clark from testifying about conduct by the Sunnyvale
Department of Public Safety is GRANTED as unopposed. This ruling does not preclude
Clark from testifying about police practices and protocols, including those of the Sunnyvale
Department of Public Safety, or from giving his opinion as to whether or not Defendants’
conduct conformed to those practices and protocols.
Finally, Defendants’ request to exclude testimony by Clark about what Cañas may
have seen or thought is GRANTED. Any such testimony would be speculative and would be
an improper subject of testimony by Clark, whose expertise does not qualify him to draw
inferences with regard to what Cañas may have seen or thought beyond those inferences
which a jury would be competent to draw. Fed. R. Evid. 702(a).
Defendants’ Motions in Limine No. 6 and No. 7, asking the Court to preclude
testimony about the colors the officers wore and the cars they drove, respectively, are
DENIED without prejudice. The relevance of such evidence to the negligence and Fourth
Amendment claims is not “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of
time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. Depending on
the evidence Plaintiffs actually seek to present at trial, the Court may revisit this ruling.

19
20
21
22

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 is GRANTED as unopposed. Witnesses may not
testify about what Cañas believed or perceived during the events leading up to his death.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 9, requesting that the Court bar testimony and

23 arguments about what officers could or should have done in hindsight is DENIED insofar as
24 Defendants seek to exclude testimony on police practices and the standard of care, and
25 whether the officers’ actions violated those policies or failed to adhere to that standard of
26 care.
27
28
3

1
2
3

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 10 is DISMISSED as moot. In their opposition,

4 Plaintiffs assert that they agreed to produce their experts for deposition the week of
5 September 3, 2012.
6
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Dated:
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4