Adams v. City of Hayward et al

Filing 134

Pretrial Conference Tentative Ruling. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 1/20/2017. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TERRI ADAMS,

Case No. 14-cv-05482-KAW

Plaintiff,
8
v.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
TENTATIVE RULING

9
10

CITY OF HAYWARD, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

I.

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Relevant evidence is any evidence that has any tendency to make a fact that is of

14
15

consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the

16

evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. The Court has discretion to "exclude relevant evidence if its

17

probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the

18

issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative

19

evidence."

20

MIL

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

P1

Motion
To exclude character
evidence of specific
instances of conduct to
impeach Plaintiff's
character and from
introducing irrelevant
evidence or asking
prejudicial questions
about Plaintiff's
character

Ruling

Reason/Explanation

GRANTED IN
PART;
DENIED IN
PART

Evidence of acts prior to November 30,
2013 is excluded unless Plaintiff opens
the door to impeachment by
contradiction. Evidence of the January
18, 2014 vandalism event is excluded.
Evidence of the February 1, 2014 arrest
is permitted for rebuttal of damages
only.

1
2
3
4

D1

5
6
7
8
9

D2

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

To exclude Plaintiff's
testimony regarding
whether Defendants
lacked a legal
justification to use
force, and whether
Defendants' use of
force constitutes
excessive force or was
objectively
unreasonable
To exclude complaints,
allegations of
misconduct,
investigations into
alleged misconduct,
and civil lawsuits
concerning the City of
Hayward and
Defendants

GRANTED

Plaintiff did not oppose. Issues of legal
justification and excessive force are
factual determinations to be decided by
a jury.

GRANTED

Plaintiff did not oppose. Introduction of
complaints and allegations of
misconduct may also present hearsay
issue.

DENIED

Plaintiff did not oppose. Defendants'
concern about responding to Plaintiff's
witnesses on damages, however, is
negated by Plaintiff having no witnesses
on damages other than herself.

To bifurcate the trial
into liability and
damages phases

D4

14

D3

To exclude witnesses
and evidence not
disclosed to
Defendants

GRANTED

Plaintiff did not oppose. Rule 37
permits the exclusion of information at
trial that was not properly disclosed
under Rule 26.

D5

To exclude evidence of
police brutality,
excessive force, or the
Black Lives Matter
movement generally

GRANTED

Plaintiff did not oppose. Evidence has
no relevance, and creates risk of undue
prejudice.

D6

To exclude evidence of
Plaintiffs' loss of
income or loss of
economic opportunity

GRANTED

Plaintiff did not oppose. Rule 37
permits the exclusion of information at
trial that was not properly disclosed
under Rule 26.

DENIED

Plaintiff did not oppose. Rule 37(e) is
inapplicable, and Defendants fail to
show why terminating sanctions are
necessary to cure any prejudice to them.
Further, Defendants never sought to
compel production.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

D7

Seeking terminating
sanctions for failure to
produce evidence

27
28
2

II.

1

DAMAGES

Plaintiff shall be prepared to explain, at the pretrial conference, why the following
2
damages may be awarded in this case, what evidence Plaintiff has that such damages resulted from
3

the events at issue in this suit, and what evidence Plaintiff has in support of the amounts sought.1

4
1. Direct doctor expenses (unknown amount)
5
2. Planet Fitness Year Membership ($480)
6
3. Medications (unknown amount)
7
4. December 12, 2013 ambulance expenses ($1,044.16)
8

5. January 2, 2014 hospital expenses2 ($6,170)

9
6. September 8, 2014 hospital expenses ($1,883)
10
7. November 10, 2014 hospital expenses ($1,217)
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8. November 10, 2014 Sutter Health expenses ($2,483)
12
9. August 2015 transportation expenses ($6,000)
13

10. December 10, 2013 to January 17, 2014 expenses3 ($1,188)

14
11. Grand Chiropractic services ($19,930)
15
12. Therapeutic bed ($2,499)
16
13. Relocation costs ($1,200)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

Plaintiff has not, for example, designated an expert witness. Several courts have precluded lay
witness testimony regarding any medical matters which require scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge, such as matters concerning diagnosis, opinion, inference, or causation.
See Edwards v. Desfosses, 1:13-cv-1013-SAB (PC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34168, at *9-10 (E.D.
Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) (allowing the plaintiff to testify as to what he saw or felt relating to his
medical needs or condition as a result of the complained of incident, but precluding the plaintiff
from testifying regarding a diagnosis, opinion, inference, or causation, or offering any opinions or
inferences from any medical records); Martinez v. Allison, 1:11-cv-1749-RRB, 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 54887, at *4-5 (finding that the plaintiff could testify as to the injuries he contended he
suffered as a result of the defendant's alleged conduct, but that as a lay person he could not testify
as to the diagnosis, prognosis, opinion, inference, or causation of his injuries, nor could he present
medical evidence unless it was introduced in accordance with the applicable Federal Rules of
Evidence) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015); Xiong v. Kirkland, 2:09-cv-3345-MCE-AC, 2014 WL
280973, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2014) (allowing the plaintiff to testify as to what he experienced
as a result of the alleged incident of excessive force, but precluding the plaintiff from offering any
opinions or inferences from any medical records).
2

27
3

28

These expenses include a drug screen, urine tests, and a pregnancy test. (Dkt. No. 132 at 8.)

The Court observes that this amount includes an outstanding balance of $545 from November
25, 2013, prior to Plaintiff's November 30, 2013 arrest.
3

14. Loss of income ($40,000)

1
2

III.

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

First, the Court has reviewed the parties' joint exhibit list. (Dkt. No. 127.) The parties

3
4

shall be prepared to explain the relevance of the following exhibits, and why these exhibits should

5

not be excluded:

6

1. Exhibit 1: December 16, 2014 complaint filed in the instant case

7

2. Exhibit 2: December 16, 2014 civil cover sheet

8

3. Exhibit 3: May 20, 2014 Second Chance Anger Management Classes log

9

4. Exhibit 16: January 2, 2014 hospital records
5. Exhibit 18: January 18, 2014 police summary report4

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

6. Exhibit 25: August 2015 motion to withdraw

12

7. Exhibit 26: E-mail correspondence related to August 2015 motion to withdraw

13

8. Exhibit 27: December 8, 2015 declaration listing attorneys Plaintiff contacted to
pursue settlement discussions

14
15

Second, the Court's July 28, 2016 case management and pretrial order for jury trial

16

required that the parties "[d]esignate excerpts from discovery that the parties intend to present at

17

trial, other than solely for impeachment or rebuttal, from depositions specifying the witness page

18

and line references, from interrogatory answers, or from responses to requests for admission."

19

(Dkt. No. 99 at 4.) The parties were reminded of this requirement in the Court's January 9, 2017

20

order to show cause and January 10, 2017 order regarding the joint pre-trial statement. (Dkt. No.

21

117 at 1, Dkt. No. 119 at 2.) Defendants have apparently designated 148 pages of testimony from

22

Plaintiff's June 2, 2015 deposition, while Plaintiff has not made any designations. (See Dkt. No.

23

120 at 9.) Defendants shall be prepared to explain why it is necessary to designate 148 pages of

24

Plaintiff's deposition testimony. Plaintiff shall be prepared to explain if she intends to designate

25

any discovery response (for purposes other than impeachment and rebuttal) and if so, why such

26

designations should not be excluded for failure to comply with the Court's orders.

27
4

28

Unlike the February 1, 2014 arrest, the January 18, 2014 event concerned an accusation that
Plaintiff broke a neighbor's home window, but no eyewitness testimony.
4

1

Finally, Defendants state they will present expert testimony from Dr. Stephen Raffle

2

regarding "symptoms that can be attributed and that generally apply to a person diagnosed as

3

bipolar and who is in a manic or depressed state." (Dkt. No. 132 at 5.) Defendants shall be

4

prepared to explain how Dr. Raffle's testimony is relevant to this case, including what evidence

5

exists to show that Plaintiff was in a manic or depressed state on November 30, 2013.

6
7
8

IV.

The parties submitted joint jury instructions, but did not provide any instructions regarding
damages. The Court will provide complete jury instructions at the pre-trial conference.

9
10

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

V.

JURY VERDICT FORM

The parties provided a joint jury verdict form, comprised of seven special verdict forms.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(Dkt. No. 124.) The special verdict forms concerning the substantive causes of action refer to

12

questions on the special verdict form "Compensatory Damages" that do not exist. (See Dkt. No.

13

124 at 4 (referring to Questions 2(a)-(b)), 6 (same), 8 (referring to Questions 1(a)-(h)), 10 (same),

14

12 (same), 13 (listing Questions 1(a) and 2 only).) The proposed verdict forms also contain

15

grammatical errors and inconsistent use of italics and underlining. The parties are to resubmit

16

their joint jury verdict form, correcting the above errors, prior to the pre-trial conference.

17
18
19

VI.

JURY QUESTIONNAIRE

The parties shall be prepared to explain the relevance and propriety of the following
questions on the joint proposed jury questionnaire:

20

20(a). People who meet with misfortune have usually brought it upon themselves.

21

20(b). There are too many frivolous lawsuits.

22

20(c). Jury awards in lawsuits are generally too low/about right/too high/no opinion.

23

21.

In terms of your political outlook, do you usually think of yourself as very

24

conservative/somewhat conservative/middle of the road/very liberal/somewhat liberal/not

25

political.

26

26.

Have you ever:

27
28
5

1

a.

Been a victim of a crime?5

2

b.

Witnessed a violent act or crime being committed?

3

c.

Been involved in a criminal lawsuit as a defendant or victim

4

d.

Ridden in a Police Patrol Vehicle?

5

e.

Witnessed an incident where the police arrested someone?

6

f.

Known anyone personally who has committed a crime or been arrested?

7

27.

What do you feel is the primary cause of crime in our community?

8

28.

Have you ever been a member of, or otherwise associated with, any of the

9

following organizations: Parent Teachers Association (PTA), American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), and community block associations or block watch associations such as Neighborhood

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Watch.
29.

12

Opinions regarding the following:

13

a.

The police are overly constrained in their enforcement of the law.

14

b.

Criminals should be reformed, not punished.

15

c.

Police officers must perform perfectly while on duty.

16

d.

The courts are too lenient in the way they treat criminal defendants.

17

e.

Crime is one of the most important problems in society today.

30.

18

Have you or anyone you know ever been accused of a mistake at work?

19

VII.

The Court requires that Plaintiff Terri Adams personally attend the January 24, 2017 pre-

20
21

trial conference, in addition to Plaintiff's counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

OTHER MATTERS

Dated: January 20, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

5

The instant case is not a criminal matter.
6