Borges v. City of Eureka et al

Filing 223

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 7. Order Regarding Motions in Limine, Objections to Classes of Exhibits, and Jury Questionnaire. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 8/8/17. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEPHANY BORGES, 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, MICHAEL DOWNEY, TIM HERSHBERGER, TERRI BITTNER, TIM HAMMER AND DAVID SWIM United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No.: 15-cv-00846 YGR PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 7 ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE, OBJECTIONS TO CLASSES OF EXHIBITS, AND JURY QUESTIONNAIRE Dkt. Nos. 138-146, 150-164 Defendants. 12 A. Motions in Limine 13 The parties filed motions in limine on June 16, 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 138-146, 150-164.) The 14 motions came before the Court for hearing on July 26, 2017. After reviewing and considering all 15 papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the motions, as well as the arguments advanced by 16 counsel at the hearing, the Court makes the following rulings on the parties’ motions: Number Plaintiff's Motions in Limine Plaintiff Evidence and argument regarding third-party claims and No. 1 culpability, including: (1) Plaintiff’s claims against City Defendants—City of Eureka, Michael Stelzig, Drake Goodale, and Bryon Franco— including the Court’s grant of City Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; (2) Plaintiff’s claims against CFMG Defendants—CFMG, Robert Eury, and Ann Hampton—including the settlement between Plaintiff and CFMG Defendants; (3) Plaintiff’s claims against various individual County Defendants that Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed, and other claims against County Defendants, including Leo Basler, which the Court dismissed on summary judgment; (4) Any alleged culpability of these former defendants or any other third party, including Decedent Daren Borges. GRANTED except that defendants may offer evidence and argument regarding the roles and responsibilities of CFMG medical staff involved in the incident. Defendants may present evidence regarding what the CFMG medical staff perceived and actions the CFMG staff took during this incident. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff No. 2 Inflammatory character evidence and argument regarding Decedent, including: (1) Decedent’s tattoos, except that they need not be redacted from video recordings from the incident; (2) Decedent’s past illegal drug use; (3) Decedent’s past periods of incarceration; (4) Decedent’s past convictions. GRANTED as unopposed with regard to (1), decedent’s tattoos, except that they need not be redacted from video recordings from the incident. (Dkt. No. 181.) GRANTED as unopposed with regard to (4), decedent's past convictions except to the extent such reference is made or implied by in conjunction with other relevant and admissible evidence, such as decedent’s past periods of incarceration and his previous drug use. (Id.) DENIED as to (2), decedent's past illegal drug use, and (3), periods of incarceration to the extent that defendant deputies Hershberger, Hammer, Bittner, and/or third party percipient witness nurse Hampton have personal knowledge of decedent's drug use and previous incarcerations based on prior interactions with decedent, otherwise GRANTED. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff No. 3 Evidence and argument regarding Decedent’s prior contacts with law enforcement, including: (1) Juvenile detentions or arrests; (2) Field contacts and field interviews; (3) Detentions under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150; (4) Arrests and detentions related to criminal offenses (including a 12 page rap sheet); (5) Alleged designation as a “WP GANG” member; (6) Detentions related to Decedent being unable to care for himself due to intoxication; (7) Restraining orders against Decedent; (8) Prior interactions between Decedent and the individual defendants or third party percipient witnesses in a custodial setting. GRANTED as unopposed with regard to (1) juvenile detentions or arrests; (2) field contacts and field interviews; (3) detentions under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150; and (5) alleged designation as a “WP GANG” member. (Dkt. No. 182.) DENIED as to (4), (6) and (8) but only to the extent that defendant deputies Hershberger, Hammer, Bittner, and/or third party percipient witness nurse Hampton have personal knowledge of decedent's drug use and previous incarcerations based on prior interactions with decadent, otherwise GRANTED. 26 27 GRANTED as to (7). 28 2 Plaintiff No. 4 1 2 3 4 Evidence or argument regarding any details of Defendant Terri Bittner’s leave of absence, including reason(s) for the leave. DENIED IN PART. Defendants shall be allowed to reference only that Bittner was on medical leave so as to explain how she fell within the purview of a waiver with respect to the training requirements. Plaintiff No. 5 Evidence or argument suggesting that Decedent was HIV positive. GRANTED as unopposed. Plaintiff No. 6 Evidence or argument regarding Decedent’s past refusals of medical or mental health care. GRANTED. Plaintiff No. 7 Evidence or argument regarding the identity of Decedent’s cousin, Duncan Devine. GRANTED as unopposed. Plaintiff No. 8 Evidence or argument regarding the circumstances of expert witness Richard Lichten’s retirement from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. DENIED. Plaintiff No. 9 5 Opinion testimony and work product by Michael Schott that was not properly disclosed by Defendants under Rule 26, including opinions contained in his February 8, 2016 report and his April 18, 2016 declaration. 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 GRANTED. Not only are the opinions not properly disclosed but it is insufficient under Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702. In his two-page report, Mr. Schott seeks to opine that the video at issue has "image quality" which is "limited by the low resolution, and is further degraded by the apparent presence of foreign matter upon the lens. The result is a loss of edge definition, contrast, and overall clarity." Mr. Schott's opinions are plainly evident. He provides no expertise that will assist the jury to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 // // // // // // // // // 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Number Defendants' Motions in Limine Defendants Evidence and argument regarding other, unrelated notorious No. 1 incidents regarding publicized incidents, either nationally or locally, involving misconduct by police or correctional officers, including any reference to the case of Cotton v. City of Eureka, Case No. C-08-04386-SBA. (F.R.E. 401, 402, 403 and 404(a) and (b).) GRANTED respect to notorious national incidents. DENIED with regard to the case of Cotton v. City of Eureka, Case No. C-08-04386-SBA. Defendants Evidence and argument regarding matters outside the evidence No. 2 designed to, or having the effect of, inflaming the jury to bring in a verdict for political impact. (F.R.E. 402 and 403.) GRANTED with respect to evidence and argument regarding sending a message to the defendants or politicizing this incident. However, proper constitutional arguments may be offered. Defendants Evidence and argument regarding any failure by County No. 3 officers to follow policies, including any evidence or assertion regarding CFMG’s policies on the basis that these are not the policies of the County governing correctional officers. (F.R.E. 402 and 403.) GRANTED as to evidence and argument that that (i) CFMG's policies are the policies of the County of Humboldt's and (ii) defendants' failure to follow CFMG's policies results in liability for the County of Humboldt. Defendants Evidence and argument regarding any deficiencies, including No. 4 any licensure issue, in the medical screening by the CFMG nurse performed at the sobering cell. (F.R.E. 401, 402 and 403.) GRANTED as unopposed. Defendants Any testimony by any witness or any hypothetical or other No. 5 question incorporating a statement of what is purportedly depicted on a video or stated in an audio recording. (F.R.E. 402 and 403.) GRANTED as unopposed. Defendants Evidence and argument that any mental health policy of the No. 6 correctional facility was applicable to the decedent’s booking and incarceration based upon obvious intoxication. (F.R.E. 401, 402 and 403.) DENIED. Defendants Evidence and argument that the decedent had a purported No. 7 “head injury” or that any correctional officer had knowledge that the decedent was experiencing symptoms of a head injury. (F.R.E. 401, 402 and 403.) *RESERVED* Defendants Evidence and argument that the correctional facility was DENIED. 27 28 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 No. 8 required to have audio monitoring of the sobering cell. (F.R.E. 402 and 403.) Defendants Evidence and argument regarding purported conversations No. 9 with any probation/parole officers regarding decedent, including whether he was clean or drug-free. (F.R.E. 801, 802, et seq.) GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not offer evidence or argument on this issue without prior permission of the Court to ensure that evidence, if any, is admissible. Defendants Evidence and argument that there was any purported DENIED. No. 10 inadequacy of the sobering cell log entries for decedent. (F.R.E. 403, 703 and 704.) Defendants Evidence and argument that IMQ and STC standards were not No. 11 met. (F.R.E. 702 and 703.) DENIED DENIED as untimely. Objections go to weight, not admissibility. Defendants Evidence and argument that the County and Downey failed to DENIED. No. 12 enact policies and provide training to ensure jail staff would recognize signs of medical distress and call medical staff when appropriate, and adequately monitor arrestees in sobering cells. (F.R.E. 403 and 702.) Defendants Evidence and argument regarding prior jail incidents, No. 13 including, but not limited to, the jail death involving Martin Cotton, or any settlement thereof. (F.R.E. 401, 402, 403 and 404(a) and (b).) DENIED as to the Cotton incident. Defendants Evidence and argument that the Board of Correction found No. 14 correctional staff were not compliant with required training. (F.R.E. 401, 402 and 403.) GRANTED as unopposed. Defendants Evidence and argument that Sheriff Downey knew that any No. 15 constitutional violation occurred, that any policies or trainings were inadequate, or that he ratified any constitutional violation. (F.R.E. 401, 402, 403, 702 and 703.) DENIED. The parties and their counsel are PROHIBITED from introducing or referring in any way to 23 the evidence above during trial. The parties shall ensure that their witnesses (including expert 24 witnesses and party – affiliated witnesses called by the adverse party) are instructed not to refer in 25 any way to the evidence above. 26 B. 27 1. Plaintiff's Exhibits 2 (series), 3, 4 (series) Objections are overruled without prejudice to 28 OBJECTIONS -- SECOND AMENDED JOINT EXHIBIT LIST (DKT. NO. 209) reasserting on grounds of cumulative. 5 1 2. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5: Objection is sustained on hearsay grounds only. 2 3. Plaintiff's Exhibit 18: Objections are overruled. 3 4. Plaintiff's Exhibit 25: Objections pursuant to Evidence Code section 401, 402 and 403 4 are overruled. Defendants' objection on pursuant to Evidence Code section 801 is 5 reserved. Plaintiff must be able to lay a proper foundation at trial to overcome the 6 hearsay objection. 7 5. Plaintiff's Exhibit 27, 28, 29 (series): Objections are overruled. 8 6. Plaintiff's Exhibit 30 (series): Objections are sustained in part. This series of exhibits 9 contains video from the facility showing a variety of real time camera angles (one to four), including the decedent and the defendants. However, because these are real time 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 clips, they also include other individuals, including other employees of the County, 12 other correctional officers, medical staff, and some additional detainees. Defendants 13 object on 401-403 grounds and third-party privacy grounds for the additional detainees. 14 With respect to the latter, the Court notes that there are instances where the faces of 15 third-party detainees are clearly visible and others where they are not. Defendants’ 16 objections on 401-403 grounds are overruled. With respect to the third-party detainees, 17 plaintiff shall obscure the face of those individuals so that they are not recognizable or 18 otherwise black out those portions of the videos. These videos must be pre-cleared by 19 the Court before use to ensure compliance with this order. 20 7. Plaintiff's Exhibit 34 (series): Objections are overruled. 21 8. Plaintiff's Exhibit 35 (series): Reserved. 22 9. Objections to Defendants' Exhibits 100-102, 104 and Plaintiff's cross designations are 23 overruled. Parties are ordered that any video shown must be played to the jury are 24 regular speed. Any slowing down of the video or annotation to the video must be 25 identified for and explained to the jury. 26 10. With respect to Defendants Exhibits 106 and 107 which comprise the entire file of 27 decedent’s medical and mental health records, respectively, the exhibits are excluded in 28 their current form. To the extent that particular portions of decedent’s medical and 6 1 mental health records are proffered as evidence, the Court shall evaluate particular 2 portions of these files on a case by case basis. While Federal Rule of Evidence 3 803(4)(B) provides “for a hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of 4 medical diagnosis or treatment,” such statements only fall within the exception “insofar 5 as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.” See 30C Kenneth W. Graham & 6 Michael H. Graham, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 7045 (2017). Thus it is not enough that 7 the declarant made the statement with an intent to facilitate medical diagnosis or 8 treatment; the statement must be in addition in fact be “reasonably pertinent to 9 diagnosis or treatment.” Id. To the extent relevant, defendants must make such individualized proffers. See Lovejoy v. U.S., 92 F. 3d 628 (8th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Reniville, 779 F.2d 420, 436 (8th Cir. 1985); Gong v. Hirch, 914 F.2d 1269, 1273 (7th 12 Cir, 1990). Notwithstanding the foregoing, parties may object at trial on grounds of 13 cumulative to the extent it is then appropriate. JURY QUESTIONNAIRE 14 C. 15 Attached for the parties' review is the current version of the Jury Questionnaire. Any 16 further comments should be provided to the Court no later than noon on Friday, August 11, 17 2017. 18 This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 138-146, 150-164. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 Dated: August 8, 2017 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE  Please PRINT your answers  To Be Completed by Jurors called to the Courtroom of the Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for the Trial of:  Borges v. County of Humboldt, et al .      Case Number:  15‐cv‐00846‐YGR  Name:                Residence:           Years:     Education:  Highest Grade Completed:        Birthplace:             Years:             Degrees:             College/Vocational Schools attended:           Areas of Study:                                 Current Occupation/Position:               Length of Service:         Employer:                                               Prior Occupation/Position: _____________________________________  Length of Service:         Employer:                 Describe Any Supervisory Roles:               Age:       Prior Residence:                              Describe Any Supervisory Roles:                         Current Status (Circle):  Single (living alone/with others)     Married      Separated     Divorced      Widowed  Occupation & Employer of Adults Living in the Same Household:                                          Children:  Age(s)            Occupation(s) if employed:                                                   □  NO □  IF NO, do you use it regularly at work or home? YES □ NO □   Do You OR any CLOSE Family/Friends have Military Service? YES □ NO □  Is English your first language?  YES  Have You Ever Served on a Jury?   Circle:  YES    NO      Number of times:     Circle:     State Court   Federal Court    Both    □  NO □  Did each jury reach a verdict?   YES  Circle:  Civil Case         Criminal Case         Both  □  NO □     Have you ever served as Foreperson?   YES  [CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]  1      Date(s) of Service:       □  NO □  Do You OR any CLOSE Family/Friends work or have training in law enforcement?  YES  If yes, describe:                       □  NO □    Do You OR any CLOSE Family/Friends suffer from mental illness?  YES  If yes, describe:                       □  NO □  Have You OR any CLOSE Family/Friends experienced homelessness?  YES  If yes, describe:                                                         □  NO □   Have You OR any CLOSE Family/Friends been arrested or detained in custody?  YES  If yes, describe:                     □  NO □  Have You OR any CLOSE Family/Friends used methamphetamine?  YES  If yes, describe:                           □  NO □    Have You OR any CLOSE Family/Friends suffered with drug addiction?  YES  If yes, describe:                                                       □  NO □     Have You Ever Been Convicted of a Felony? YES  If yes, provide basic details:             □  NO □     Have You Ever Testified in any Court Proceeding?  YES  If yes, describe:                 This trial involves videos which end in a death.  Do you have any reason to believe that you will not be able to  □  NO □     consider the evidence in a fair and impartial manner.  YES  If yes, describe:                       Circle If You Have STRONG opinions on any of the following institutions and/or topics:       Humboldt County Sheriff's Office    Methamphetamine    Mental Illness  Law Enforcement        Homelessness     2      Drug Addiction        If you are chosen to serve as a juror, you will hear the testimony of many witnesses, and the Court will  instruct you that you may have to decide which testimony to believe or not believe.  In considering the  testimony of any witness, you may take into account:   a. the witness’s opportunity and ability to see, hear, or know the things about which he or she is  testifying;  b. the witness’s memory;  c. the witness’s manner while testifying;  d. the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case, if any;  e. the witness’s bias or prejudice, if any;  f. whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and  g. any other factors which bear on believability.  Do you have any concerns about following this instruction?  (Circle):  YES        NO                    If yes, explain:                             As described in the previous question, the law requires that jurors evaluate the totality of a witness’s  testimony.  Do you think you automatically would tend to credit the testimony of law enforcement  personnel?    (Circle):   YES       NO   If yes, explain:                             Indicate the strength of your opinions on any of the following statements and/or topics:     1.  There are too many lawsuits.    Strongly Agree   Agree         Disagree     Strongly Disagree    No Opinion  2. Public Entities should Not be held responsible with money damages if the law finds them liable.       Strongly Agree   Agree     Disagree     Strongly Disagree    No Opinion    3. Finish the following sentence by circling an answer    In general, I think Damages Awards from civil lawsuits are_______      Too high    Too low   Just Right      I am not sure/No opinion       Do you have any firmly held belief that would prohibit you from awarding money damages?   (Circle):  YES       NO  If yes, explain:                         Is there any other issue you would like to discuss with the judge regarding your ability to serve as a juror in  this case?  If YES, please describe briefly:  __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________  3    Potential Witnesses  The following is a list of potential witnesses and persons affiliated with the case.  CIRCLE any names of those  who you know or with whom you are personally familiar:  Individuals  Albrecht, Jennifer  Aponte, Scott  Basler, Leo  Bernstein, Jack  Bittner, Terri (Defendant)    Borges, Stephany (Plaintiff)   Broberg, Jeffrey  Bullard, Donna  Bunton, Gerald, M.D.  Bux, Robert, M.D.    Chao, Tina, PA.   Christian, Duane  Cordova, Ronald, M.D.    Devies, Leslie, DO.    Downey, Michael (Defendant)  Engkatanakorn, Naruchon, M.D.    Esget, Hal  Eury, Robert, RN  Flint, Dean  Franco, Bryon  Fulton, Todd   Gerdes, Eric, DO.    Greenberg, Jonathan, M.D.   Goodale, Drake  Grossman, Brian  Individuals  Gustin, Barry, M.D.    Hall, Brian  Hammer, Timothy (Defendant)  Hampton, Ann, LVN Harlander, Brandon  Harrison, Mark  Hershberger, Timothy  (Defendant)  Hinrichs, J. #1649  Jencks, Jodel, RN  Kemp, Chris  Laakeniemi, Brian, M.D.  Lawrence, Philip   Lichten, Richard  Lovie, Karen  Madden, Kim  Madden, Larry   Maguire, Kathryn  McCullouch, Kelsey, RN  McEwen, Joshua  McLean, Jennifer, RN  McSkane‐Beers, Fiona, RN  Mills, Andrew  Moore, Jacqueline, Ph.D.  Musson, Greg  Individuals  Parris, David  Patel, Meeta, M.D.    Perrone, Martin  Poyourow, Robert  Rogers, Travis  Schott, Michael  Smith, Edwin    Smith, Kathy  Stelzig, Michael  Super, Mark, M.D.  Swim, David (Defendant)  Tran, Minh  Veborg, Hans, RN  Warrentin, M.  Wilson, Jennifer, M.D.    Yandell, Diana, M.D.      Entities   County of Humboldt  City of Eureka  California Forensic Medical  Group (CFMG)      I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND CORRECT.  SIGNATURE:                 DATE:              Extra Space If Needed to Respond to the Questions Above  (Please put the question number next to your response.  Thank you.)  __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________  4   

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?