Brown v. City & County of San Francisco et al

Filing 99

ADDENDUM TO FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4 AND DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT A. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on November 26, 2017. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBERT BROWN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

v.
CITY & COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO, et
al.,

Case No. 16-cv-04671-DMR
ADDENDUM TO FINAL PRETRIAL
ORDER REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY
OF PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4 AND
DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT A
Dkt. No. 98

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4: Plaintiff may attempt to establish that the EMT record is admissible
as a business record pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 803(6). If admissible, it can be

14
used to prove acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses recorded in the document, assuming
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff establishes Treff’s competence to render the opinions and information she recorded. The
facts admissible under FRE 803(6) include the statement “no signs of etoh or drug use” on page 1,
the information in the “Impressions” box on page 1, the information in the “Assessments” box at
the bottom of page 1, the information in the “Vital Signs” box at the top of page 2, and the
information in the “Treatment Summary” box on page 2.
With respect to the remaining statements in the “Narrative” box on the first page, the

21
statements in the first paragraph, except for the last sentence, are admissible under FRE 803(4) as
22
23

statements made for medical treatment. The last sentence, which says “Pd also reports pt is not in
custody and will be cited and released once the eval is done,” will not be admissible unless

24
Plaintiff can establish that it falls under a hearsay exception. All statements in the second
25
26

paragraph beginning “Upon exam, pt states . . .” are admissible under FRE 803(4) as statements
made for medical treatment. The statement “Pt denies any other complaints” is admissible as a

27
statement made for medical treatment. All statements in the fourth paragraph are admissible under
28

1
2

FRE 803(4) as statements made for medical treatment.
If the parties dispute the admissibility of any other information in this document (patient

3

information, “crew/response/disposition/times,” “insurance,” or the information in the

4

“signatures” box), they shall immediately meet and confer and be prepared to discuss it with the

5

court outside the presence of the jury and before identification of this document at trial.

6

Defendants’ Exhibit A: Defendants may attempt to establish that the Blue Plate itemized
receipt is admissible as a business record pursuant to FRE 803(6)(A-D), subject to Plaintiff’s

8

attempt to establish that the source of information or the method of circumstances of preparation

9

indicate a lack of trustworthiness pursuant to FRE 806(6)(E). Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

10

The itemized receipt is relevant to the issue of how much alcohol, if any, Plaintiff consumed in the

11

time period immediately preceding the events at issue. The potential for prejudice does not

12

substantially outweigh its probative value.

13

S

OO
IT IS S

o
Judge D

D

RDERE

ER

H

19

nna M

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

FO

RT

18

R NIA

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate. Judge
Ryu

LI

17

Dated: November 26, 2017

A

16

UNIT
ED

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

14

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

NO

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C