Makhzoomi v. Southwest Airlines Co. et al

Filing 132

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER granting 102 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 105 Motion in Limine; granting 106 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 107 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 1/28/2020.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KHAIRULDEEN MAKHZOOMI,
Plaintiff,

8

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

v.

9
10

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-00924-DMR

Following the pretrial conference held on January 22, 2020, the court sets forth its pretrial

12
13

rulings below.

14

I.

15

MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 1, exclude evidence that Dr. Pathak hugged Captain Scott

16

Herrick after Plaintiff was removed from the flight (Docket No. 102): granted for the reasons

17

stated on the record.

18

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 2, exclude evidence that passenger Matthew Ross

19

voluntarily deplaned after Plaintiff was removed from the flight (Docket No. 102): granted for the

20

reasons stated on the record.

21

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 1, exclude five categories of evidence pursuant to the

22

Aviation and Transportation Security Act (“ATSA”), 49 U.S.C. § 44901, and California Civil

23

Code section 47(b) (Docket No. 105): granted in part and denied in part, as follows, for the

24

reasons stated on the record.

25
26
27
28

a. Evidence or argument that Defendants should not have reported Dr. Pathak’s safety-related
report to law enforcement: granted.
b. Evidence or argument that Defendants improperly influenced law enforcement to take
action against Plaintiff: granted only as to Southwest employees other than Shoaib Ahmed.

1

Plaintiff is not prohibited from introducing evidence or argument that Ahmed improperly

2

influenced law enforcement to take action against Plaintiff.

3

c. Evidence or argument that Defendants are responsible for the decisions of Officer Taylor

4

and other law enforcement officers regarding how to respond to the report: granted only as

5

to Southwest employees other than Ahmed. Plaintiff is not prohibited from introducing

6

evidence or argument that Ahmed was responsible for the decisions of Officer Taylor and

7

other law enforcement officers regarding how to respond to the report.

8

d. Evidence or argument that Defendants are responsible for Plaintiff missing his flight while

9

he was being interrogated by law enforcement: granted only as to Southwest employees
other than Ahmed. Plaintiff is not prohibited from introducing evidence or argument that

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Ahmed was responsible for Plaintiff missing his flight while he was being interrogated by

12

law enforcement.

13

e. Evidence of any alleged emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff once law enforcement took

14

over handling of the incident: Plaintiff is not prohibited from introducing such evidence,

15

but only if he can make a causal connection between his treatment while being detained by

16

law enforcement and Ahmed’s actions.

17

Defendants’ motion in limine 2, exclude evidence or argument that Defendants had any

18

duty to assess or investigate Dr. Pathak’s report before reporting it to law enforcement, or

19

criticizing Defendants for failing to investigate Dr. Pathak’s report before reporting it to law

20

enforcement (Docket No. 106): granted for the reasons stated on the record.

21

Defendants’ motion in limine 3, exclude certain information in the FBI and LAWA

22

reports (Docket No. 107): granted in part and denied in part. The statements in the FBI and

23

LAWA reports that “Southwest Airlines refused to fly Makhzoomi and refunded his ticket” and

24

“but was denied boarding privileges at that time by Southwest Manager Ahmed due to statements

25

made on board the plane” are hearsay. They may be admissible for their truth as party-opponent

26

admissions pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) if Plaintiff can establish a foundation

27

that Ahmed was the source for the statements.

28

Defendants also move to exclude statements in the FBI report about Plaintiff’s family
2

1

background and his own testimony regarding his father’s imprisonment and execution, text

2

messages with his mother around the time of his detention, and the fact that his brother has Down

3

Syndrome. Plaintiff may testify that he exchanged text messages with his mother around the time

4

of his detention by law enforcement but may not introduce the actual text messages with his

5

mother. Plaintiff may testify about his family history, including his father’s imprisonment and

6

execution and his relationship with his brother, but may not mention that his brother has Down

7

Syndrome. Plaintiff may not testify about the emotional distress of his mother or his brother.

8

Plaintiff’s testimony about his father will be subject to a limiting instruction explaining that it may

9

only be considered for purposes of damages and not liability.

The court will formally rule on all substantive jury instructions at the February 6, 2020

S

R NIA

I

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu . Ryu
na M
dge Don
JuStates Magistrate Judge
United

RT

17

Dated: January 28, 2020

ERED
O ORD
T IS S

ER

H

18

FO

16

UNIT
ED

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

13
14

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

charging conference.

LI

12

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

NO

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

II.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

A

10

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C