Kensinger v. California Highway Patrol et al

Filing 59

OMNIBUS ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 15, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2012)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

SEAN KENSINGER,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

OMNIBUS ORDER ON
MOTIONS IN LIMINE

PAUL CRAFT, individually and in his
capacity as an officer for the California
Highway Patrol,
Defendant.
/

14
15

No. C 11-00885 WHA

The pretrial conference in this action was heard on June 18, 2012. In advance of that

16

conference, the parties submitted motions in limine, which are addressed below.

17
18

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE (TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE OF THE RESULTS OF PLAINTIFF’S CRIMINAL TRIAL).

19

Defendant’s motion in limine number one is GRANTED. Defendant seeks to exclude

20

pursuant to FRE 402 and 403 the results of plaintiff’s criminal prosecution for driving under the

21

influence of alcohol. Plaintiff’s criminal trial resulted in a hung jury and he subsequently pled

22

no contest to reckless driving. Now, plaintiff argues that these results are relevant because our

23

jury will wonder what came of plaintiff’s arrest and may assume that he was found guilty. This

24

concern can be alleviated by a jury instruction that the outcome of plaintiff’s arrest is irrelevant

25

to the issue of this case and the jury should not speculate as to what happened. An important

26

caveat, if defendant opens the door by raising post-arrest events to leave a false impression that

27

plaintiff was criminally guilty of a DUI, then plaintiff may respond by showing that the criminal

28

trial ended in a hung jury.

1

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER THREE (TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO DOCUMENT USE OF FORCE).

2
Defendant’s motion in limine number three is DENIED. Defendant seeks to exclude
3
evidence and argument that defendant Officer Paul Craft failed to properly document any use of
4
force during the arrest. Whether Officer Craft used force during the arrest is at the heart of the
5
dispute between the parties. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by Officer Craft’s beating while
6
Officer Craft asserts that he only had light physical contact with plaintiff. Officer Craft’s alleged
7
failure to document use of force is probative of whether force was used.
8
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO (TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE
CUSTOMS, POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL).

10

Defendant’s motion in limine number two is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

Defendant seeks to exclude evidence and argument that excessive force resulted from the

12

customs, policies, and practices of the California Highway Patrol, which is not a named

13

defendant in this action anymore. In response, plaintiff agrees to exclude evidence of “(i)

14

misconduct of other CHP officers; (ii) the response of the CHP to the alleged misconduct of

15

other officers; [and] (iii) the allegedly inappropriate or inadequate training that CHP provides to

16

its officers” (Opp 1). However, plaintiff argues that whether Officer Craft conformed his actions

17

to CHP custom, policies, and practice when he allegedly failed to document the use of force is

18

relevant. For the reasons stated, this order agrees and holds that defendant’s motion in limine is

19

denied for evidence regarding CHP custom, policies, and practice of documenting the use

20

of force.

21

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE (TO EXCLUDE DR. DOUGLAS
TUCKER’S TESTIMONY ON PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED USE OF MARIJUANA).

22
Plaintiff’s motion in limine number one is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff
23
seeks to exclude pursuant to FRE 402 and 403 testimony by defendant’s expert, Dr. Douglas
24
Tucker, on whether plaintiff’s alleged history of marijuana use has impaired his psychological
25
and cognitive capacities. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Tucker’s testimony would be unnecessarily
26
cumulative because defendant’s other expert, Dr. Emily Keram, will likely discuss plaintiff’s
27
cognitive abilities in her testimony regarding plaintiff’s mental health and emotional distress.
28
2

1

Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice because it is yet unclear to what extent

2

Dr. Keram’s testimony will discuss plaintiff’s cognitive abilities, and how to what extent

3

Dr. Tucker’s testimony will overlap. Plaintiff may re-raise its objection if Dr. Tucker’s

4

testimony at trial becomes unduly repetitive. Plaintiff’s contention that expert testimony

5

regarding marijuana use is irrelevant is rejected. If defendant lays a proper foundation at trial

6

that plaintiff used marijuana before the incident, then defendant’s expert can properly testify as

7

to the effect of that use on plaintiff’s cognitive abilities.

8
9

CONCLUSION
Two caveats: Any denial above does not mean that the evidence at issue in the motion is
admitted into evidence — it must still be moved into evidence, subject to other possible

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

objections, at trial. And, a grant of a motion in limine does not exclude the evidence under any

12

and all circumstances; the beneficiary of a grant may open the door to the disputed evidence, for

13

example.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: June 15, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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