Wroth et al v. City of Rohnert Park et al

Filing 131

PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 2, 2019. (jstlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
CHRISTOPHER WROTH, et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8

PRETRIAL ORDER1

v.

9

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-05339-JST

12
Pursuant to the Court’s standing orders and the orders made from the bench at the pretrial

13
14

conferences held May 24, 2019, and May 31, 2019, the Court now orders as follows:

15

Scheduling and Time Limits

16

Trial will continue Monday through Thursday from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Counsel are

17

expected to arrive at 8:00 a.m. each trial day in order to address matters required to be addressed

18

outside the presence of the jury.
The Court will impose time limits on the presentation of evidence. Based on the requests

19
20

of the parties, the Court allocates 18 hours to Plaintiffs and 10 hours to Defendants. These time

21

limits are inclusive of all witness examination, i.e., direct, cross-, re-direct, and re-cross. They do

22

not include voir dire, opening statements, or closing arguments.
The Court will conduct preliminary voir dire, followed by counsel’s voir dire. Each side

23
24

may conduct 20 minutes of voir dire of the first group of 16 potential jurors, and an additional 10

25

minutes each time the “six pack” is refilled.

26
27
28

1

This order reflects the rulings made from the bench at the pretrial conferences held May 24 and
May 31, 2019. The rulings set forth here are in addition to those set forth in the minutes and the
Court’s Standing Order for Civil Jury Trials.

1
2

Counsel’s opening statements are limited to one hour or less unless counsel requests a
longer time on June 3, 2019, and the request is granted.

3

Motions In Limine

4

Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine Number 1 is granted with respect to the late-produced training

5

documents. Neither those documents, nor testimony based on them, are admissible. These

6

documents were obligated to be disclosed pursuant to Rule 26 and there was no substantial

7

justification for late disclosure. The motion is denied as moot with respect to the decedent’s

8

medical records and rap sheet. These items are not admissible for other reasons stated on the

9

record in connection with Plaintiffs’ other motions in limine.

10

Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine Number 2 is granted in part and denied in part. The length of

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

time of decedent Wroth’s drug and alcohol use is admissible, even if it is not possible to be

12

specific about that length. Thus, that Wroth might have used methamphetamine for “years” or “a

13

substantial period of time” is admissible. Counsel are directed to meet and confer for the purpose

14

of reaching an agreement on how to describe this period. (Subsequent to this ruling, counsel

15

prepared such a stipulation.)

16

The fact that Branch Wroth suffered the convictions that are the subject of this motion is

17

inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 403 and his rap sheet is excluded for that

18

reason. That he was convicted adds almost nothing to the probative value of his drug and alcohol

19

use but is unduly prejudicial because of the stigma attached to a criminal conviction.

20

The specific medical records that are the subject of the motion are inadmissible as hearsay

21

and pursuant to FRE 403. They are likely to contain many extraneous details that will be

22

confusing to a jury and which would require expert testimony. The fact of Wroth’s

23

hospitalizations, however, is admissible, as are the physician’s findings during his emergency

24

room visits. See May 24, 2019 Transcript (“5/24 R.T.”) 31:24-32:5. The admonition from

25

Wroth’s physician about the likely future effects of methamphetamine use has no probative value

26

and is excluded. The fact that Wroth was in a state of undress, or similar details, are also

27

excluded. Counsel are directed to meet and confer regarding what “similar details” should be

28

admissible or not and bring their disagreements to the Court’s attention well in advance of any
2

1

witness examination.

2

Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine Number 3 is granted without objection.

3

Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine Number 4 is granted. Specifically, Defendants’ expert will

4

not opine that the officers in this case were not deliberately indifferent and will not give opinions

5

on areas of training other than those listed in motion, although testimony concerning the overall

6

hours requirements for Rohnert Park police training are admissible. 5/24 R.T. 40:12-41:1.

7

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 1 is denied without prejudice. Federal Rule of

8

Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(i) requires that an expert report contain “a complete statement of all

9

opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” “Additional information
and opinions should be contained in supplemental reports regarding information given during the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

expert’s deposition.” Green v. Kanazawa, No. CV 16-00054LEK-KSC, 2018 WL 6671578, at *3

12

(D. Haw. Apr. 23, 2018). The Court will enforce these rules at trial on timely objection.

13

Nonetheless, the motion is denied without prejudice because Defendants have not

14

identified the particular “opinions, bases, and factual matters” they wish to exclude. See ECF No.

15

86 at 2 (stating “during deposition plaintiffs’ retained experts expressed opinions and relied on

16

bases and facts not included in their expert reports” without elaboration); Colton Crane Co. v.

17

Terex Cranes Wilmington, Inc., CV 08-8525 PSG (PJWx), 2010 WL 2035800, at *1 (C.D. Cal.

18

May 19, 2010) (“[M]otions in limine must identify the evidence at issue and state with specificity

19

why such evidence is inadmissible. . . . [M]otions in limine should rarely seek to exclude broad

20

categories of evidence . . . .”).

21

The parties have agreed that Plaintiffs’ experts may address issues raised by Defendants’

22

experts based upon, or disclosed within, evidence that had not been produced at the time

23

Plaintiffs’ expert reports were served.

24

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 2 is granted for the reasons stated on the record.

25

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 3 is denied for the reasons stated on the record,

26

except that Plaintiffs may not “put [in] any other professional standard that [they] have not already

27

identified.” 5/24 R.T. 51:6-8.

28

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 4 is denied for the reasons stated on the record.
3

1

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 5 is granted in part. Mr. Ehle may not testify

2

regarding medical causation and specifically, whether the officers’ means of restraint caused or

3

contributed to Mr. Wroth’s death, whether Mr. Wroth was suffering from mental illness, or

4

whether he was suffering from excited delirium. The portion of the motion addressed to “legal

5

opinions” is denied for the reasons stated on the record.

6

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 6 is denied for the reasons stated on the record.

7

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 7 is denied for the reasons stated on the record.

8

The Court will consider a timely-offered limiting instruction that the use of the word “homicide”

9

does not imply criminal intent, although effective cross-examination may render such an

10

instruction unnecessary.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 8 is denied for the reasons stated on the record.

12

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 9 is granted in part. Plaintiffs will provide an

13

excerpt of this video sufficient to show Mr. Wroth’s cyanosis. Plaintiffs will provide the proposed

14

excerpt to Defendants by 8:30 a.m. June 5, 2019. Failure to provide the excerpt timely waives

15

Plaintiffs’ right to introduce any portion of the video. If, after meeting and conferring, Defendants

16

have any objection to Plaintiffs’ proposed excerpt, they will so inform the Court at 8:00 a.m.

17

June 6, 2019. Failure to make a timely objection waives Defendants’ right to object.

18

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 10 is granted for the reasons stated on the record.

19

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 11 is granted in part. The memorial slide show

20

must be shown without music but may be shown to the jury. Defendants’ objection to the birthday

21

video was withdrawn.

22
23

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 12 was withdrawn based on the representations of
Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the subject matter of these witnesses’ testimony.

24

Defendants’ Motion In Limine Number 13 is granted for the reasons stated on the record.

25

Evidentiary Objections

26

1.

27

Plaintiffs’ objection to Defendants’ Exhibit 19, the mug shot of Branch Wroth, is

sustained pursuant to FRE 403.

28
4

2.

1
2

Plaintiffs’ objection to Defendants’ Exhibit 14 is sustained on grounds of untimely

disclosure.

3

3.

Defendants’ Exhibit 15 was withdrawn.

4

4.

Plaintiffs’ objection to Defendants’ Exhibit 16 was withdrawn.

5

Plaintiffs’ remaining objections to Defendants’ exhibits are moot in light of the Court’s

6

rulings on the motions in limine.

7

Objections to Witnesses

8

1.

9

Jury Instructions
1.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The objection to Defendants’ witness Rebecca Sotello, ECF No. 85, is overruled.

The Court will add the following sentence to Ninth Circuit Model Instruction 9.7:

“Failure to discipline the officers involved, by itself, is not enough to demonstrate ratification.”
2.

12

The Court will add the following sentence to Ninth Circuit Model Instruction 9.8:

13

“Notice to the City is established by either (1) evidence of a pattern of similar constitutional

14

violations by untrained or inadequately trained employees, or (2) a showing that the consequences

15

of a failure to train are patently obvious.”
3.

16

The Court will also add the following sentence to Ninth Circuit Model Instruction

17

9.8: “If supported by the evidence, you may find that the training provided by the City of Rohnert

18

Park was inadequate even if you also find that its training complied with POST requirements.”
4.

19

The Court will add the following sentence to Ninth Circuit Model Instruction 9.322:

20

“Deliberate Indifference can only be found in circumstances where actual deliberation by a

21

defendant is practical.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: June 2, 2019
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2

The Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions Committee does not provide a model instruction with this
number, but the Court adopts the parties’ nomenclature.
5