Monica v. Williams, et al

Filing 63

ORDER RE 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/30/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

MARTIN MONICA,

Case No. 15-cv-04857-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

9
10

BRYAN WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

[Re: ECF 43, 44, 45, 46, 47]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Plaintiff Martin Monica (“Plaintiff”) brings this action alleging that Defendants detained,

13
14

arrested him and used excessive force in violation of his constitutional rights. Monica initially

15

brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Santa Clara and the individual police

16

officers involved in the incident: Bryan Williams, Luke Erickson, and Patrick Estes. Only the

17

claims against Officers Williams and Erickson (“Defendants”) for an alleged unconstitutional de

18

facto arrest and use of excessive force remain. The Court held a pretrial conference on January

19

26, 2017, at which time it addressed a number of trial issues and heard argument on the parties’

20

motions in limine. The Court hereby orders as follows:

21

I.

SCHEDULING
Plaintiff is allotted 8 hours of trial time, to include examination and cross-examination of

22
23

witnesses and the presentation of evidence. Defendant is allotted 6 hours of trial time, also to

24

include examination and cross-examination of witnesses and the presentation of evidence. Each

25

party will have an additional 30 minutes for opening statements and one hour for closing

26

arguments.

27
28

II.

JURY QUESTIONNAIRE
For the reasons discussed on the record, the Court will not allow use of a jury

1

questionnaire. Each party will be allotted 40 minutes for voir dire.

2

III.

3
4

MOTIONS IN LIMINE
For the reasons explained below and on the record at the January 26, 2017 pretrial

conference, the motions are decided as follows:

5

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1: GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

6

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2: DEFERRED.

7

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1: GRANTED.

8

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2: GRANTED.

9

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3: DENIED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

A.

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
i.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Expert Testimony of Robert
Fonzi. GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff moves to exclude any and all testimony by Robert Fonzi (“Fonzi”) as well as his

13
expert report as irrelevant and improper expert testimony, and contends it would create a
14
15

substantial danger of undue prejudice to Plaintiff if admitted. Pl.’s Mot. in Lim. No. 1, at 1, ECF
43. Plaintiff thus argues that Fonzi’s proposed expert testimony, which offers numerous legal

16
conclusions, credibility determinations, and irrelevant opinions, are not proper expert testimony
17
under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and should be excluded. Id. at 2 (citing Chang v. Cty. of Santa Clara, No.
18
15-cv-2502, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93246 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016)).
19
20
21
22

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion in part, and argue that while Fonzi’s trial testimony
may properly be limited, it should not be stricken in its entirety. Defs.’ Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. in Lim.
No. 1, at 2, ECF 55. While Defendants concede that Fonzi may not opine on “pure” opinions or
conclusions of law, he should be permitted to testify regarding the reasonableness of Defendants’

23
actions and use of force in connection with general police standards and training. Id. (citing Fed.
24
R. Evid. 704(a)).
25
The Court finds that Fonzi is a qualified witness and will be allowed to testify. However,
26
Fonzi may not testify as to any legal conclusion or the credibility of any witnesses. United States
27
v. Barnard, 490 F.2d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 1973) (finding that credibility is an issue for the jury);
28
2

1

Mukhtar v. Cal. State Univ., 299 F.3d 1053, 1065 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A]n expert witness

2

cannot give an opinion as to her legal conclusion[.]” (citation and emphasis omitted)). Moreover,

3

the Court cautions counsel that any questions directed to Fonzi must be phrased properly, for

4

example, as hypotheticals, and will be subject to trial objections. Accordingly, the Court

5

GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 1.

6

ii.

7

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Testimony Regarding
Plaintiff’s Prior Political Activities, Lawsuits, and Reason for Being in the
Area. DEFERRED.

8

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any and all testimony, evidence, mention, or argument relating to

9

Plaintiff’s political activities, prior lawsuits, and his reason for being in the area on the night of the
incident. Pl.’s Mot. in Lim. No. 2, at 2, ECF 47. Plaintiff argues that such evidence is irrelevant

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to this action, inadmissible character evidence, and prejudicial. Id. at 2–3.

12

Defendants concede that evidence of Plaintiff’s previous lawsuits is not admissible, but

13

oppose Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that evidence of Monica’s prior political activity and the reason

14

he was in the area at the time of the incident is relevant, and the evidence’s probative value is not

15

substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice in this case. Defs.’ Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. in

16

Lim. No. 2, at 2, ECF 59. Specifically, Defendants contend that this evidence lends credence to

17

the Officers’ version of the facts. Id.

18

At the pretrial conference, the Court agreed to defer ruling on this motion until trial.

19

However, to the extent the Court allows this evidence to be admitted, it will be allowed only for

20

impeachment purposes. Moreover, if the evidence is admitted, the Court would welcome a

21

limiting instruction and would require Defendants’ counsel to make a showing of the questions

22

they intend to ask before allowing questioning on the subject. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion in

23

limine no. 2 is DEFERRED.

24
25
26

B.

Defendants’ Motions in Limine
i.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence Relating to Any
Prior or Subsequent Incidents Involving Any of the Officers. GRANTED.

Defendants move to exclude any and all utterances, statements, evidence, testimony,
27

argument, or any mention by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s witnesses and/or Plaintiff’s attorneys about any

28
3

1

prior or subsequent complaints or incidents involving any of the Officers. Defs.’ Mot. in Lim. No.

2

1, at 3, ECF 44. Defendants argue that any prior and subsequent complaints or incidents are

3

irrelevant and should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401. Id. at 2. Defendants further

4

contend that any potential relevance is strongly outweighed by the risk of prejudice from the jury

5

considering them as propensity evidence. Id. at 3 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 403, 404).

6

Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ motion, but asks that Plaintiff be allowed to “walk

7

through” the door if Defendants open the door to the admission of such evidence on direct

8

examination. Pl.’s Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. in Lim. No. 1, at 1, ECF 48.

9

The Court agrees with Defendants, and will exclude any evidence relating to prior or
subsequent complaints or incidents involving the Defendants. However, in the event Plaintiff

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

feels the door has been opened, he is advised to raise the issue with the Court so the Court may

12

revisit its ruling. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1.

13

ii.

14

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Miscellaneous Items Under
FRE 403. GRANTED.

Defendants seek to exclude reference to: (1) the San Jose Mercury News article regarding
15
this case and (2) a prior incident between Santa Clara officers and an African-American subject on
16
a bicycle that Monica witnessed and speculated may have been racially-motivated. Defs.’ Mot. in
17
Lim. No. 2, at 2, ECF 45. Defendants argue that the San Jose Mercury News article is irrelevant
18
and hearsay. Id. Defendants also contend that the prior incident Plaintiff observed is irrelevant.
19
20
21

Id. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. Pl.’s Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. in Lim. No. 2, at 1, ECF 49.
The Court finds Defendants’ argument persuasive and the motion is unopposed. The Court
GRANTS Defendants’ motion in limine no. 2.

22
23
24

iii.

Defendants’ Motion In Limine No. 3 Regarding Bifurcating Punitive
Damages and to Exclude Evidence of Defendants’ Finances During Liability
Phase. DENIED.

Defendants seek to bifurcate the punitive damages phase and to exclude evidence of
25
26

Defendants’ financial condition until there is a finding of liability for punitive damages. Defs.’
Mot. in Lim. No. 3, at 3, ECF 46. Defendants argue that evidence of Defendants’ financial

27
condition is inadmissible until Plaintiff has first proven a prima facie case of lability for punitive
28
4

1

damages, and that prematurely hearing evidence of Defendants’ income and assets may potentially

2

prejudice the jury. Id. at 2.

3

Plaintiff only opposes the motion to the extent that it implies that Plaintiff bears the burden

4

of establishing Defendants’ financial condition. Pl.’s Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. in Lim. No. 3, at 1, ECF

5

50. Plaintiff contends that the burden is on Defendants to establish their own financial condition.

6

Id.

7
8
9

The Court does not find that bifurcation is necessary and further finds that bifurcation
would be time consuming. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion in limine no. 3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: January 30, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5