Chang v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 71

ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE by Judge Ronald M. Whyte (granting 48 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 49 Motion in Limine; tentatively granting 50 Motion in Limine; granting 51 Motion in Limine; tentatively granting 52 Motion in Limine; granting 53 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 54 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal). (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SHIOW-HUEY CHANG,

Case No. 5:15-cv-02502-RMW

Plaintiff,
13
v.

ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE

14
15

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 48, 49, 50, 54, 54-4, 51, 52, 53

Defendants.
16
17
18

In this case involving allegations of excessive force by police officers, the court held a
pretrial conference on May 26, 2016.

19

A.

Motions in Limine

20

Defendants County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, and Deputies

21

Forest and Strickland (collectively “defendants”) submitted seven motions in limine. Plaintiff

22

Shiow-Huey Chang did not submit any motions in limine. The court rules on defendants’ motions

23

in limine as follows.

24

1. Motion to Exclude Experts Who Were Not Previously Disclosed (Dkt. No. 48)

25
26
27

Granted as Unopposed.
2. Motion to Exclude Outcome of Plaintiff’s Criminal Trial (Dkt. No. 49)
Additional Briefing Requested. Defendants seek to preclude plaintiff from referencing the
1

28
5:15-cv-02502-RMW
ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
TN-MW-RS

1

dismissal of plaintiff’s criminal case for violating California Penal Code section 148 (resisting,

2

delaying, or obstructing an officer). Dkt. No. 49. While evidence of an acquittal is not generally

3

admissible in a subsequent civil action between the same parties, the parties have cited one case in

4

which a court allowed a plaintiff to discuss the amount of attorney’s fees spent in defending a

5

criminal case as part of a claim for damages in a civil case for false arrest.1
Before the hearing on the instant motion, the court understood plaintiff’s claims to be

6
7

limited to alleged excessive use of force. By June 30, 2016, plaintiff shall submit an offer of proof

8

explaining how plaintiff’s complaint and pretrial submissions support a damages claim for

9

attorney’s fees that plaintiff spent in defense of the criminal case that was dismissed. Assuming
that the court does allow plaintiff to present evidence regarding the dismissal of the criminal

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

charges, by June 30, 2016, defendants shall submit a proposed jury instruction to appropriately

12

limit the jury’s consideration of the criminal charge and subsequent dismissal. The parties may

13

respond to each other’s submissions by July 8, 2016.

14

3. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Other Cases Brought Against Defendant Deputies (Dkt.
No. 50)

15

Tentatively Granted. Defendants move to preclude plaintiff from discussing or offering any
16
evidence regarding two lawsuits filed against the defendant deputies: (1) Hao v. Santa Clara
17
County Sheriff's Office et al.; and (2) Tabazadeh et al. v. County of Santa Clara et al. The court
18
finds that these cases are insufficiently related to the facts or claims of the instant case to gain
19
admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) or 403. See Duran v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d 1127,
20
1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000). Hao is a seven-year-old case involving alleged false arrest for insurance
21
fraud, not alleged excessive force during a traffic stop. Tabazadeh is still pending, and, to the
22
extent that Ms. Tabazadeh alleged that Strickland turned up the radio in a patrol car to an
23
excessive volume to silence her, there is no such allegation against Strickland in the instant case.
24
Whatever marginal relevance these cases may have to plaintiff’s supervisory liability claims is
25
significantly outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the deputies, confusion, and waste of
26
27
28

1

See Borunda v. Richmond, 885 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1988).
2

5:15-cv-02502-RMW
ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
TN-MW-RS

1
2

time.
By June 30, 2016, plaintiff may submit an offer of proof addressing the court’s concerns.

3

Defendants may submit a response by July 8, 2016.

4

4. Motion to Exclude Prior Complaints or Investigations or Other Lawsuits Related to
Deputy Defendants (Dkt. No. 54-4)

5

Moot. Defendants seek to preclude plaintiff from discussing or offering evidence regarding
6
particular complaints, internal affairs matters, or disciplinary actions discussed in the personnel
7

files of Deputies Forest and Strickland. Dkt. No. 54-4. At the pretrial conference, plaintiff’s

8
counsel represented that plaintiff does not intend to rely on information from the defendant
9
deputies’ personnel files. Accordingly, this motion and defendants’ related motion to file under
10
seal, Dkt. No. 54, appear to be moot and the court need not rule on them.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

5. Motion to Exclude Reference to Forest’s Phone Conversation En Route to Jail (Dkt. No.
51)
Granted. The phone call does not appear to be relevant to plaintiff’s theory of injury or any

14

other issue, and any minimal relevance would be greatly outweighed by the associated unfair

15

prejudice and waste of time under Rule 403.

16

6. Motion to Exclude Questions Regarding Forest’s Use of Racial Slurs (Dkt. No. 52)

17

Tentatively Granted. The court finds that Forest’s use of racial slurs is not relevant to any

18

material issue in this case. Plaintiff’s claims are for excessive use of force, not for equal protection

19

violations. Moreover, the possibility of confusing the issues or unfairly prejudicing Forest

20

significantly outweighs any probative value racial epithets might have with respect to Forest’s

21

credibility. Plaintiff may file an offer of proof addressing these concerns by June 30, 2016, and

22

defendants may file a response by July 8, 2016.

23

7. Motion to Exclude Reference to Nursing Board Complaint Against Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 53)

24

Granted as Unopposed.
***

25
26
27

Each party’s supplemental submissions regarding the motions in limine due on June 30,
2016 may not exceed a combined total of 15 pages per party (not per motion). The responses due
3

28
5:15-cv-02502-RMW
ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
TN-MW-RS

1

on July 8, 2016 may not exceed a combined total of 15 pages per party.

2
3
4
5
6

B.

Jury Instructions

The parties shall meet and confer and file revised proposed jury instructions no later than
July 13, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 26, 2016
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

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
27
4

28
5:15-cv-02502-RMW
ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
TN-MW-RS