Williams v. Williams

Filing 198

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken RESOLVING ( 173 , 176 ) MOTIONS IN LIMINE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ISAIAH N. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

5

8

DEBRA WILLIAMS,
Defendant.
________________________________/

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

ORDER RESOLVING
MOTIONS IN LIMINE

v.

6
7

No. C 07-4464 CW

Plaintiff Isaiah Williams, an inmate at Pelican Bay State
Prison (PBSP), brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against
Defendant Debra Williams.

The Court held a pretrial conference

and heard arguments regarding the parties’ motions in limine on
June 26, 2013.

After considering the parties’ oral argument and

submissions, the Court now issues the following rulings:
I.

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

16
17
18

A.

MIL No. 1: Motion to Exclude References to Plaintiff’s
Past Criminal Convictions and Rule Violations

This motion is GRANTED.

Defendant may not present evidence

19

or argument that identifies the specific nature or circumstances

20

of Plaintiff’s conviction or any evidence relating to Plaintiff’s

21

past rule violations.

22

and argument that (1) Plaintiff was convicted of a violent felony

23

and (2) the unit where Plaintiff currently resides is used to

24

house violent prisoners.

25

argument pertaining to the rules violation report arising from the

26

August 16, 2006 incident which is the subject of this action.

27
28

Defendant may, however, present evidence

Defendant may also present evidence or

1
2

B.

MIL No. 2: Motion to Exclude References to Plaintiff’s
Alleged Gang Affiliation

This motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s membership in a white

3

supremacist gang is a key issue in this case, as Plaintiff’s own

4

expert asserts in his report.

5

at ¶ 30 (“In the present case, the risk of harm was heightened due

6

to the specific types of inmates, Nazi Low Rider (white supremacy)

7

and Black Guerilla Family (Black).”).

8

the jury would deny them access to relevant information while

9

creating administrative difficulties for both parties.

See Pl.’s Ex. 20, R. Subia Report,

Concealing this fact from

Cf. United

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

States v. Price, 13 F.3d 711, 720 (3d Cir. 1994) (upholding a

11

district court’s decision to admit conversations in which a party

12

used racial epithets because “it would have been virtually

13

impossible to redact this or the other conversations without

14

altering their substance”).

15

C.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

MIL No. 3: Motion to Exclude References to Plaintiff’s
Alleged Nickname, “Sinner”

This motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s nickname is prejudicial

and serves no probative value here.

All references to Plaintiff’s

nickname should be redacted from any otherwise admissible
exhibits.
D.

MIL No. 4: Motion to Exclude References to and Evidence
of Plaintiff’s Tattoos

This motion is DENIED.

The two photographs Plaintiff seeks

23

to exclude do not reveal the tattoo of his nickname and include

24

mostly blurry images of his other tattoos.

25

his tattoos are visible in these photographs, they are no less

26

relevant and no more prejudicial than any other evidence of

27

Plaintiff’s alleged membership in a white supremacist gang.

28
2

To the extent any of

1

E.

MIL No. 5: Procedure for Exchange of Evidence Relating
to MILs No. 1-4

2

This motion is DENIED as unnecessary.

3

F.

4

MIL No. 6: Motion to Exclude Evidence or Argument
Relating to Prior Decisions by Other Tribunals or
Agencies

5

This motion is GRANTED.

6

G.

7

MIL No. 7: Motion to Exclude Statements About State
Finances and the Use of Taxpayer Funds to Satisfy Any
Judgments in this Case

8

This motion is GRANTED as unopposed.

9

H.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

MIL No. 8: Motion to Exclude Undisclosed or Improper
Expert Testimony

This motion is GRANTED in part.
any undisclosed expert testimony.
refer to herself as an “expert.”

Defendant may not present

Furthermore, Defendant may not
Allowing Defendant to offer

“expert” testimony at trial would be unduly prejudicial because
her judgment is directly at issue in this case.

While Defendant

may testify about her experience as a correctional officer with
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
or her subjective belief that she used appropriate force, she may
not characterize her views as expert opinion.
I.

MIL No. 9: Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Curtis
Cope

This motion is GRANTED in part.

A “trial court has ‘broad

22

discretion’ in assessing the relevance and reliability of expert

23

testimony.”

24

Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169, 1178

25

(9th Cir. 2001)).

26

sufficient level of “scientific, technical, or other specialized

27

knowledge” to “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence

28

or to determine a fact in issue.”

United States v. Finley, 301 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th

To qualify as an expert, a witness must have a

Fed. R. Evid. 702(a).
3

1

Here, Defendant has not established that her expert, Curtis

2

Cope, satisfies this requirement.

3

experience as a correctional officer nor any specialized knowledge

4

of CDCR facilities and procedures.

5

officer for several decades, this experience does not make him an

6

expert in correctional policy.

7

experience is unlikely to aid the jury in determining whether

8

Defendant used appropriate force because Defendant made her use-

9

of-force decision while stationed at a control booth in a maximum

Cope has no training or

Although he served as a police

Here, especially, Cope’s police

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

security prison that Cope has never visited.

11

training therefore does not qualify him to offer expert testimony

12

about the propriety of Defendant’s conduct in this situation,

13

which is unique to the correctional context.1

14

Cope’s police

Cope’s police experience does, however, qualify him to offer

15

expert testimony about the specific weapon Defendant used to

16

subdue Plaintiff.

17

and force of the “40mm less lethal weapon,” about the range and

18

effectiveness of pepper spray, and about whether Defendant’s

19

decision to use the 40mm less lethal weapon on August 16, 2006 was

20

appropriate.

21

J.

22
23

Specifically, Cope may testify about the range

MIL No. 10: Motion Regarding Plaintiff’s Shackles and
Garments During Trial

This motion is DENIED.

24
25
None of Defendant’s cited cases suggests otherwise. Each of the
cases she cites features police officers testifying as experts on
“police procedures and policies” -- not prison procedures and policies.
See, e.g., Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 635 (9th Cir.
1991) (“Fyfe was formerly a New York City police officer, and was
qualified as an expert on proper police procedures and policies.”).
1

26
27
28

4

K.

1
2
3

This motion is resolved as set forth in the Court’s July 2,
2013 order regarding telephone access.

4

L.

5

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

MIL No. 12: Motion Regarding Evidence Preservation and
Alleged Discovery Abuses

regarding Defendant’s alleged discovery abuses.

However, he fails

to offer any new argument or evidence in support of the motion.
Magistrate Judge Beeler denied his previous motion on June 20,
2013, Docket No. 179, and this Court denied Plaintiff’s subsequent
request for relief from Judge Beeler’s decision.

Accordingly,

this motion is DENIED.
As stated in the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s request

13
14

See Docket No. 192.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference his previous motion

6
7

MIL No. 11: Motion to Permit Telephone Communications
Between Plaintiff and His Counsel During Trial

for relief from Judge Beeler’s order, if Plaintiff has admissible
evidence showing that any witness, including Defendant,
misrepresented the availability of certain CDCR photographs or
training records, he may use that evidence to impeach that
specific witness.
II.

Defendant’s Motions in Limine
A.

MIL No. 1: Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Richard
Subia on Liability

This motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s expert, Richard Subia,

22

may testify that Defendant’s actions were negligent, grossly

23

negligent, or undertaken with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s

24

safety.

25

descriptions of Defendant’s conduct represents the proper legal

26

standard to be applied in this case.

Subia may not, however, testify that any of these

27
28
5

1
2

B.

MIL No. 2: Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony on Witness
Credibility

This motion is GRANTED in part.

Subia may testify about any

3

specific record-keeping policies or procedures that cast doubt on

4

any of Defendant’s representations that certain CDCR records are

5

unavailable or do not exist.

6

Defendant’s failure to check for Inmate Powell in the corridor

7

before opening Plaintiff’s cell was wrongful and led to of

8

Plaintiff’s injuries.

9

person’s conclusion that Defendant could have seen Powell from the

Subia may also opine that

He may base that testimony on his lay

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

control booth, based on the photographs.

11

offer expert opinion regarding the view from the control booth of

12

the corridor.

13

such, any testimony he offers on this particular subject would be

14

based on photographs of the control booth that the jurors may view

15

for themselves.

Subia may not, however,

Subia has never visited the control booth and, as

16

Subia is also barred from testifying that Defendant’s

17

“inability to recall the search of the cell and subsequent

18

conversation” with Plaintiff is somehow “disingenuous” or an

19

“attempt to mislead this court about what actually occurred.”

20

Subia Report ¶ 23.

21

C.

22
23
24
25
26
27

R.

MIL No. 3: Motion to Exclude Reference to Alleged
Failures of CDCR to Produce Evidence

This motion is GRANTED in part.

As noted above, Plaintiff

may present evidence of CDCR’s alleged failure to produce evidence
only if it is relevant for impeachment purposes.
D.

MIL No. 4: Motion for an Order That Plaintiff Be
Shackled for Trial

This motion is GRANTED as unopposed.

28
6

E.

1
2

MIL No. 5: Motion to Exclude Undisclosed Expert
Testimony

This motion is GRANTED in part.

Subia may testify that

3

Defendant “acted with disregard for Post Orders and her own

4

personal practice, and was highly trained to avoid this very

5

circumstance.”

6

opinion was plainly disclosed in Subia’s expert report.

7

Subia Rep. ¶¶ 25-30.

8
9

Docket No. 162, Pl.’s Witness List, at 1.

This
See R.

Subia may not testify, however, that CDCR “staff members have
at times taken retaliatory action against inmates for filing

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

formal complaints and that the facts and circumstances of this

11

case suggest that is what happened here.”

12

1.

13

its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial

14

effect.

Pl.’s Witness List, at

Although this opinion was disclosed in Subia’s expert report,

This testimony is therefore inadmissible under Rule 403.

15

CONCLUSION

16

The parties’ motions in limine (Docket Nos. 173, 176) are

17

resolved as set forth above.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated:

July 8, 2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7