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)

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