Hauschild v. City of Richmond et al

Filing 159

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER by Judge Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
THOMAS HAUSCHILD,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16
17
18

No. C 15-01556 WHA

FOR GOOD CAUSE and after a final pretrial conference, the following constitutes the
final pretrial order and rulings on motions in limine:
1.

This case shall go to a BENCH TRIAL on FEBRUARY 21 AT 7:30 A.M., and shall

19

continue until completed on the schedule discussed at the conference. The trial shall be

20

bifurcated, and the first phase shall cover whether defendants violated the POBR by taking

21

“punitive action” against plaintiff “for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct

22

[when] the investigation of the allegation [was] not completed within one year” of defendants’

23

discovery of said allegation. See CAL. GOV’T CODE § 3304(d). All other issues are postponed

24

to a date to be determined. This final pretrial order supersedes the complaint, answer and any

25

counterclaims, cross-claims or third-party complaints, i.e., only the issues expressly identified

26

for trial remain in the case.

27
28

2.

Rulings on the motions in limine were made on the record at the final pretrial

conference and are summarized later in this order.

1

3.

Except for good cause, each party is limited to the witnesses and exhibits

2

disclosed in the joint proposed final pretrial order less any excluded or limited by an order

3

in limine. Materials or witnesses used solely for impeachment need not be disclosed and may

4

be used, subject to the rules of evidence.

5

4.

The parties should meet and confer and jointly submit a tabbed binder with the

6

12 most important documents for this trial, including the internal affairs investigation report.

7

The parties may tab and highlight significant passages in each document, up to 20 passages for

8

both sides. Plaintiff should use pink tabs and highlighting. Defendants should use blue tabs

9

and highlighting. The parties should use green tabs and highlighting for passages deemed

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

significant by both sides.
5.

The stipulations of facts set forth in the joint proposed final pretrial order are

approved and binding on all parties.
6.

By agreement by both sides, each side shall have FIVE HOURS to examine

14

witnesses (counting direct examination, cross-examination, re-direct examination, re-cross

15

examination, etc.). Opening statements and closing arguments shall not count against the limit.

16

If, despite being efficient, non-duplicative, and non-argumentative in the use of the allotted

17

time, one side runs out of time and it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold that side to the

18

limit, then more time will be allotted.

19

Defendants shall go first, and present as key witnesses the decisionmakers involved in

20

the punitive actions in question against plaintiff, as well as witnesses to show tolling of the

21

POBR limitation period. Each witness will be subject to cross-examination by plaintiff.

22

Plaintiff may then present witnesses. Rebuttal and surrebuttal may be allowed (if within the

23

time limits).

24

7.

The parties shall follow the Court’s current Guidelines for Trial and

25

Final Pretrial Conference, separately provided and available on the Internet at

26

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, which guidelines are incorporated as part of this order.

27
28
2

1

RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

2

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE.

3

1.

This motion is GRANTED.

4
5

EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF COHEN AND VOLK.

2.

6

EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RE SAEDA LARS.
Neither side may introduce evidence regarding Saeda Lars, or call Lars as a witness,

7

without first obtaining the Court’s permission.

8

3.

EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF RICHARD WORD.

the liability phase of trial (see ruling on defendants’ first motion in limine). That being said, if

11
For the Northern District of California

This motion is GRANTED inasmuch as there appears to be no need for this testimony in

10

United States District Court

9

other evidence elicited at trial attacks the quality of the internal affairs investigation, then the

12

Court will consider permitting Chief Word to testify for the purpose of rebutting such evidence.

13

4.

14

RECONSIDER ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Plaintiff’s formal motion for reconsideration of the prior order on summary judgment

15

has already been denied (Dkt. No. 155). This parallel motion is likewise DENIED.

16

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE.

17

1.

BIFURCATE TRIAL AND EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION.

18

This motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

19

Defendants’ request to bifurcate the trial is GRANTED, as stated above.

20

Defendants’ request to exclude evidence of the internal affairs investigation is DENIED

21

AS WITHDRAWN.

The Court DEFERS ruling on defendants’ motion to quash the subpoena to compel the

22
23

appearance and testimony of Arnold Threets until this issue is teed up at trial.

24

2.

This motion is GRANTED.

25
26
27

EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF DAVID STARNES.

3.

PRECLUDE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES.
This motion is DENIED IN PART.

28
3

1

If the trial continues beyond the first phase, then the Court will consider plaintiff’s

2

evidence of emotional distress only insofar as it comports with the parties’ prior stipulation,

3

including plaintiff’s representation that he is “only seeking generalized or garden variety

4

emotional distress damages in this action” (see Dkt. No. 60).

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: February 16, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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
28
4