Campbell v. Feld Entertainment, Inc et al

Filing 316

ORDER RE OAKLAND FEDERAL INJUNCTION AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 2/5/2015. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

SHANNON CAMPBELL,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and
MICHAEL STUART,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

MARK ENNIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and
MICHAEL STUART,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK
13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RE OAKLAND FEDERAL
INJUNCTION AND SPECIAL
EVENTS PERMIT

22
23

At the January 22, 2015 pretrial conference, the Court ordered the parties to file

24

supplemental briefing on the relevance to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims of the August 2009 federal

25

injunction issued by Judge Patel and the special events permit Defendants obtained prior to the

26

Oakland 2012 animal walk. ECF No. 285 at 3. Plaintiffs filed their briefs on January 27, 2015,

27

ECF Nos. 289, 291, and Defendants responded on January 30, 2015, ECF Nos. 296, 297.

28

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court rules as follows:
1
Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RE OAKLAND FEDERAL INJUNCTION AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT

1
2

Federal Injunction
As to the federal injunction, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that, assuming Plaintiffs can
establish they knew it existed, the injunction could be relevant to Plaintiffs’ battery claims and

4

Campbell’s assault claim. Knowledge of the injunction could be relevant to whether a reasonable

5

person in Plaintiffs’ shoes would have found any of the alleged touchings or threatened touchings

6

to be offensive during the Oakland 2012 animal walk. If Plaintiffs reasonably thought that the

7

injunction gave them a legal right to walk where they were walking free from interference, then

8

even the slightest touching or threat thereof might have been offensive to a reasonable person in

9

their position. As such, the Court will offer to the jury a limiting instruction concerning evidence

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

of the injunction. The Court will instruct the jury that an injunction was in place at the time of the

11

Oakland 2012 animal walk, that Defendants were not legally bound by that injunction, and that the

12

jury may only consider the injunction to the extent it may be relevant to whether a reasonable

13

person would have found any of the alleged touchings or threatened touchings sustained by

14

Plaintiffs to be offensive. Attached to this Order is a proposed limiting instruction. The parties

15

may file any objections to the instruction’s wording only and state their positions on when the

16

instruction should be given by February 6, 2015.

17

Special Events Permit

18

As to the special events permit, the Court agrees with Defendants that the permit is

19

irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action. On December 15, 2014, the Court granted

20

summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs’ Bane Act claim predicated on Defendants’ alleged

21

violation of the special events permit obtained prior to the Oakland 2012 animal walk. ECF No.

22

233 at 23-24. Plaintiffs have repeatedly failed to identify a single element of a single remaining

23

cause of action for which evidence of the special events permit could be relevant. Unlike with the

24

injunction, Plaintiffs do not allege that they even knew Defendants had obtained a permit for the

25

Oakland 2012 walk, let alone what the scope of that permit might have been. Moreover, Plaintiffs’

26

conclusory assertion that “[t]he permit is thus relevant to the elements of each of Plaintiffs’ claims”

27

is unpersuasive. ECF No. 289 at 2. The Court will not allow a mini-trial on an irrelevant, or at

28

most minimally probative, issue—i.e., the scope of the permit. Accordingly, the Court hereby
2
Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RE OAKLAND FEDERAL INJUNCTION AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT

1

excludes evidence of the special events permit under Rule 403 because any probative value such

2

evidence might have is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues, undue

3

delay, and wasting time.

4

The parties shall amend their witness list, exhibit list, deposition designations, and any

5

other trial materials accordingly. The parties shall file amended witness and exhibit lists by

6

February 6, 2015. The parties shall file amended deposition designations by February 7, 2015.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: February 5, 2015

_______________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RE OAKLAND FEDERAL INJUNCTION AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT

1

[PROPOSED] FEDERAL INJUNCTION LIMITING INSTRUCTION

2

In August 2009, animal rights activists Joseph Cuviello and Deniz Bolbol obtained an injunction in
federal court allowing them and a limited number of people acting in concert with them, including
Plaintiffs, to conduct free speech activity such as videotaping, leafletting, or otherwise protesting
near the Oracle Arena (“Arena”) in Oakland, California.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

Under the injunction operating at the time of the August 7, 2012 animal walk held in Oakland,
Plaintiffs were allowed access to the following areas to conduct free speech activity:
(1) A three-foot “walkway” running along the outside of the chain link fence that encloses
the truck corral;
(2) The barricaded corridor leading to the animal compound, the area outside of but directly
adjacent to the corridor, and the gap between the corridor and the animal compound
entrance except that there shall be a ten-foot buffer zone surrounding the entrance of the
compound; (Plaintiffs could be temporarily be moved from the gap to permit movement
of equipment and animals.)
(3) The upper west landing area, up to the point where the west ramp joins the landing;
(4) One specific spot located in the area adjacent to the entrance to the north tunnel, which
has a clear view of the entire tunnel;
(5) The north ramp and landing;
(6) The northeast stairs and base of the stairs; and
(7) All exterior areas of the Arena and parking lot which are otherwise open to the public.
The injunction was legally binding against the City of Oakland, Alameda County, the OaklandAlameda County Coliseum Authority, and the Oakland Coliseum Joint Venture LLC, among
others. Feld Entertainment, Inc. and Michael Stuart were not legally bound by that injunction.

16
17
18

You may consider the existence and parameters of the injunction only insofar as you find it
relevant to whether a reasonable person with knowledge of the injunction would have found any of
the alleged touchings or threatened touchings sustained by Plaintiffs to be offensive.

19
20
21

Source: Cuviello v. City of Oakland, No. C-06-5517 EMC, 2012 WL 5628325, at *1-2, *5 (N.D.
Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) (describing the August 2009 injunction and the August 2010 modification
thereto).

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RE OAKLAND FEDERAL INJUNCTION AND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT