The Estate of Mohammed Shah et al v. City of Hayward et al

Filing 108

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 9/24/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

8

12
13

C.E.W., a minor, individually and as
successor-in-interest for Decedent
MOHAMMED SHAH, by and through his
guardian ad litem VALERIE WEAVER;
MOHAMMED SHAH, individually; and
JANIFER SHAH, individually,

No. 3:13-cv-04516-LB
SECOND ORDER ON MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

14
Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
CITY OF HAYWARD and ALLEN NEULA,
17
Defendants.
18
_______________________________/
19
20
21
22
23
24

The court held a further conference on the motions in limine on September 24, 2015 and rules as
follows:
1. The 2012 conviction for methamphetamine is admissible for the damages case. Testimony
about it is not (as the government agreed).
2. In lieu of officers’ testimony about prior law-enforcement contacts that did not result in

25

convictions, the court orders the stipulations discussed on the record for the damages case. The

26

stipulations will cover the fact of the contact, the reason for the contact, and the result of the contact.

27

The testimony is excluded under Rule 403 as prejudicial, cumulative, and confusing for the reasons

28

discussed on the record.

ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-04516-LB)

1

3. In lieu of officer testimony about the 5150 contacts, the court orders the stipulations discussed

2

on the record for the damages case. The court’s intent is that the stipulations will capture non-

3

hearsay information (including information that is not hearsay because it has operative legal effect

4

and is offered for context or because it is an admission (if indeed Mr. Shah’s statements are

5

admissions, which they appear to be). The testimony is excluded under Rule 403 as prejudicial,

6

cumulative, and confusing, as explained on the record, especially because of the dangers of officers’

7

testimony having bleed-over effects into the merits case and concerns about the equivalent of mini-

8

trials. The court allows medical testimony by the treating physicians at John George for the damages

9

case. The medical testimony may be cumulative at some point. The medical-records evidence is not
admissible to the extent that it contains inadmissible hearsay.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

4. The defendant represented that it will not impeach Ms. Shaw with any prior conviction.

12

5. Expert testimony by Dr. Gustin will be allowed for the case-in-chief about the toxicology at

13

the time of death and any medical inferences that can be drawn from the toxicology report about Mr.

14

Shah’s condition at the time of the incident to the extent (and only to the extent) that it corroborates

15

the officer’s observations about Mr. Shah’s apparent methamphetamine use. Boyd v. City and

16

County of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938, 944 (9th Cir. 2009). This case is about the objective

17

reasonableness of the officer’s conduct and cannot turn on facts not known to the officer. Also, Dr.

18

Gustin may not testify about the conclusions based on the officer’s report that Mr. Shah was non-

19

compliant and menacing (which formed the basis in part for his opinion to a reasonable degree of

20

medical certainty that Mr. Shah was high). Dr. Gustin’s one-paragraph conclusion about suicide-by-

21

cop is not at all analogous to the expert testimony admitted in Boyd that was subject to a rigorous

22

Daubert inquiry that passed “muster.” See 576 F.3d at 945-46. Dr. Gustin’s testimony about the

23

effects of methamphetamine use generally are relevant to the damages case.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: September 24, 2015

26
27
28
ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-04516-LB)

__________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge