Moujaes v. San Francisco City and County et al
Filing
87
FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on December 2, 2016. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
NYLA MOUJAES,
Case No. 15-cv-03129-DMR
Plaintiff,
8
v.
FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER
9
10
SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY,
et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
I.
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
13
Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1 (Docket No. 54):
14
Defendants move to exclude plaintiff’s “expert” testimony regarding her injuries. The
15
motion is granted in part. Plaintiff may testify about her physical and mental condition, as well as
16
her perceptions and experiences before, during, and after the incident. However, Plaintiff may not
17
testify about her diagnoses or prognoses. The court takes under submission the issue of whether
18
Plaintiff may present evidence regarding the cost of her medical care. By December 6, 2016, the
19
parties shall submit additional two-page briefs on the effect of insurance, and shall also provide
20
two copies of the missing San Francisco General Hospital bill for the exhibit binders.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants’ motion in limine no. 2 (Docket No. 55):
Defendants move to exclude the testimony of Sergeant Flint Paul, as well as Exhibit 22,
which is the use of force log. The motion is denied. Sergeant Paul’s testimony and the use of
force log are relevant, and the probative value of such evidence outweighs any prejudice.
Defendants’ motion in limine no. 3 (Docket No. 56):
Defendants move to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s police practices expert Roger
Clark, or at least to exclude his testimony on ultimate legal conclusions. The motion to exclude
his testimony is denied. Defendants’ objections to Clark’s testimony go to the weight of his
1
opinions, and not their admissibility. The motion to exclude his testimony on ultimate legal
2
conclusions is granted. Both parties’ police practices experts (Clark and Cameron) may not use
3
any language suggestive of ultimate legal conclusions. For example, the experts may not testify as
4
to whether Defendants’ use of force was “reasonable” or “excessive.” The experts may instead
5
use language such as whether the use of force complied with standard police practices, or whether
6
Defendants acted in a manner consistent with their training.
7
Defendants’ motion in limine no. 4 (Docket No. 57):
8
Defendants move to exclude Plaintiff’s testimony that the paramedics were laughing at her.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The motion is denied. Plaintiff may testify about her perceptions from her own personal
knowledge. The testimony is relevant to witness credibility as well as damages.
Defendants’ motion in limine no. 5 (Docket No. 58):
Defendants move to exclude evidence that the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office did
not charge Plaintiff with the violations listed on her citation, including resisting arrest and DUI.
The motion is denied. The evidence is relevant, and its probative value outweighs any prejudice to
Defendants. However, Plaintiff shall not argue or suggest that the District Attorney’s decision not
to pursue charges indicates that the citations were improper.
Defendants’ motion in limine no. 6 (Docket No. 59):
Defendants move to exclude evidence regarding other claims, complaints, and allegations
18
relating to Defendants. The motion is denied without prejudice, as Defendants did not specifically
19
identify any such evidence. Plaintiff confirmed that she will not seek to introduce evidence about
20
the resignation of Chief Greg Suhr or media reports that are critical of the San Francisco Police
21
22
23
24
Department.
Defendants’ motion in limine no. 7 (Docket No. 60):
Defendants move to exclude evidence and argument that Plaintiff was subjected to racial
profiling. At the pretrial conference, Defendants clarified that this motion seeks to exclude
25
Plaintiff’s testimony about her own perceptions as to why she was pulled over, and to exclude
26
Exhibit 23 (“Traffic Stop Data Collection Program Information”). Defendants’ motion as to
27
Plaintiff’s testimony is denied. Plaintiff may testify about her own perceptions, experiences and
28
2
1
observations. Plaintiff confirmed that her police practices expert will not offer any opinions
2
regarding race. Exhibit 23 is excluded as irrelevant.
3
Defendants’ motion in limine no. 8 (Docket No. 61):
4
Defendants move to exclude any reference to the City and County of San Francisco as
5
paymaster. The motion is granted. Plaintiff may not make any such reference unless Defendants
6
open the door by suggesting that an adverse judgment may impact their personal finances.
7
Defendants’ motion in limine no. 9 (Docket No. 62):
8
Defendants move to exclude evidence or argument that Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The motion is granted in part. Plaintiff may elicit testimony about the traffic stop and arrest.
Plaintiff’s expert shall not testify regarding the lawfulness of the stop or the arrest. The court
tentatively plans to instruct the jury as follows: “The legality of the traffic stop and the arrest for
traffic violations are not before the jury. However, you may consider all of the circumstances
regarding the traffic stop and Plaintiff’s arrest to determine whether the Defendants used excessive
force against Plaintiff.” The parties shall be prepared to address this instruction at the December
14, 2016 charging conference.
II.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Defendants’ objections are untimely and are therefore waived.
Exhibit 2: The parties shall meet and confer regarding the proposed transcript and
18
shall file any objections by December 6, 2016.
19
Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10: By December 6, 2016, Plaintiff shall file supplemental
20
briefing on why the medical records do not contain hearsay.
21
22
Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15, 16: The court reserves ruling on these exhibits.
Exhibits 17, 18, 19: The parties cannot submit expert reports for use by the jury,
23
but may use the reports to refresh the experts’ recollection.
24
Exhibit 20: Defendants shall remove the cars depicted on page 2 of the exhibit.
25
Exhibit 21: Defendants’ objections are untimely and are therefore waived.
26
Exhibit 22: Defendants’ objections are overruled (see motion in limine no. 2).
27
Exhibit 23: Defendants’ objection is sustained (see motion in limine no. 7).
28
3
1
III.
WITNESSES
2
Plaintiff must decide whether she will call Defendants’ medical expert, Dr. David Atkin.
3
If Plaintiff calls Dr. Atkin, Plaintiff must subpoena him and pay his expenses. Plaintiff may
4
question Dr. Atkin within the scope of his report. Defendants’ Rule 26 objection is untimely and
5
is therefore waived.
onn
Judge D
ERED
H
ER
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
FO
a M. Ry
LI
RT
12
R NIA
I
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge
u
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORD
T IS SO
A
10
UNIT
ED
9
Dated: December 2, 2016
RT
U
O
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
NO
7
S
6
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
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?