Johnson v. County of Santa Clara et al
Filing
285
ORDER REGARDING 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/7/2024. (ejdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2024)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
ANDREW LEE JOHNSON,
8
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Defendants.
12
Case No. 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Re: ECF Nos. 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251,
252, 253, 254, 255, 256
13
On January 26, 2014, the Court held a pretrial conference in this action, during which it
14
15
issued oral rulings on Plaintiff Andrew Lee Johnson’s (“Mr. Johnson”) Motions in Limine Nos. 1–
16
4 and Defendants City of San Jose (the “City”), Marco Monzon (“Officer Monzon”), and Jamie
17
Lee Nicholas Hall’s (“Officer Hall” and, with the City and Officer Monzon, “Defendants”)
18
Motions in Limine Nos. 1–7. The Court here expands upon those oral rulings.
19
I.
MR. JOHNSON’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
20
Mr. Johnson filed four motions in limine. See Pl. MILs 1–4, ECF Nos. 253–56.
21
Defendants opposed all four motions. See Opp’ns Pl. MILs 1–4, ECF Nos. 257–60. The Court
22
addresses each in turn.
23
24
A.
Mr. Johnson’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence of Expunged
Misdemeanor
In his first motion in limine, Mr. Johnson moves to exclude evidence related to his
25
expunged misdemeanor conviction for cocaine possession on the grounds that it is irrelevant to
26
any of the remaining claims in this action—namely, a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the
27
28
Case No.: 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
1
1
unconstitutional suppression of audio interview evidence under Brady; conspiracy to do the same;
2
and a related failure to investigate and failure to train under Monell—and that any relevance is
3
substantially outweighed by the undue prejudice of a jury learning of the conviction. See Pl. MIL
4
1; Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. Defendants argue that the evidence is relevant because the arrest
5
provided a legal basis for Mr. Johnson’s incarceration independent of the charges for attempted
6
homicide and aggravated assault, and because the evidence bears on the question of the bail and
7
Mr. Johnson’s inability to post the amount, resulting in his continued pretrial incarceration. See
8
Opp’n Pl. MIL 1.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
As discussed at the hearing, the Court does not find the drug possession evidence relevant
10
to Mr. Johnson’s pretrial incarceration, as the misdemeanor arrest alone would not have resulted in
11
a preliminary hearing, and it appears that he would not have been required to post bail for the
12
charge given that Mr. Johnson had no history of drug or other offenses. Accordingly, the Court
13
finds (1) that the evidence at issue is not relevant to the issues remaining for trial, and (2) that its
14
introduction would cause undue prejudice to Mr. Johnson based on a perception of drug use, such
15
that the undue prejudice would substantially outweigh any potential relevance. See Fed. R. Evid.
16
401, 403. The Court therefore GRANTS Mr. Johnson’s Motion in Limine No. 1.
17
18
B.
Mr. Johnson’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Evidence or Argument
About the Legality of His Carriage of a Firearm
Mr. Johnson next moves to exclude evidence or argument related to the legality of his
19
carrying a firearm on the evening of the event underlying his arrest, i.e., the shooting in the leg and
20
hip of two individuals. See Pl. MIL 2. Mr. Johnson argues that this evidence is irrelevant as well
21
as prejudicial, and that the introduction of this evidence would lead to a confusing and
22
unnecessary trial within a trial on a matter for which he was never charged. Defendants counter
23
that the evidence is relevant to the question of what, if anything, Officer Monzon and Officer Hall
24
would have known about any self-defense claim by Mr. Johnson, and is admissible under Federal
25
26
Rule of Evidence 404(b) because the legality of Mr. Johnson’s possession of the firearm helps
complete the story of the events at issue. See Opp’n Pl. MIL 2.
27
28
Case No.: 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
2
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
The Court notes that the parties’ joint neutral statement of the case will inform the jurors
2
that Mr. Johnson shot two individuals, so that Mr. Johnson’s use of a firearm will be evident.
3
Having considered Defendants’ arguments, the Court is not convinced that the legality of Mr.
4
Johnson’s carriage or concealment of the firearm is relevant to any issue remaining for trial. That
5
is, the firearm is relevant to the charges brought against Mr. Johnson only to the extent that he
6
used one to injure the two individuals; questions of legal permitting are not relevant to the charges
7
brought against him. Accordingly, the Court finds that the introduction of evidence related to the
8
legality or illegality of Mr. Johnson’s possession of the firearm would be unduly prejudicial to Mr.
9
Johnson and cause confusion and undue delay, such that these factors would substantially
10
outweigh any relevance of the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Court therefore GRANTS
11
Mr. Johnson’s Motion in Limine No. 2.
12
C.
13
Mr. Johnson’s Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence or Argument
About the Event Leading to His Traumatic Brain Injury
In his third motion in limine, Mr. Johnson seeks to exclude evidence or argument that his
14
suffering of a traumatic brain incident was caused by a suicide attempt, which evidence Mr.
15
Johnson contends would be inaccurate, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial. See Pl. MIL 3. At the
16
hearing, counsel for Mr. Johnson clarified that he does not seek to exclude evidence that he has
17
suffered a traumatic brain injury, and is merely seeking to exclude any potential discussion of
18
suicide. Defendants agreed that suicide need not and would not be discussed, but argued that the
19
traumatic brain injury itself should be admissible as relevant to the question of damages.
20
As discussed at the pretrial conference, the Court will bifurcate the trial into two phases:
21
Phase I will be a liability phase on all remaining claims, and Phase II will be a damages phase on
22
any claims for which the jury finds Defendants liable. Accordingly, because the evidence at issue
23
in Mr. Johnson’s third motion in limine is relevant only to the question of damages, the Court
24
DEFERS resolution of the motion until Phase II of the trial, if the phase is reached.
25
26
27
28
D.
Mr. Johnson’s Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Evidence or Argument
About the Timing of His Self-Defense Claim
Lastly, Mr. Johnson seeks to exclude evidence or argument related to the timing of his selfCase No.: 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
3
1
defense claim. See Pl. MIL 4. Specifically, Mr. Johnson contends that Defendants should not be
2
permitted to argue that Mr. Johnson did not raise a self-defense argument at the preliminary
3
hearing. Mr. Johnson further argues that evidence concerning whether or not he called the police
4
after the shooting, or whether or not he informed the police that he shot the two individuals in self-
5
defense, is irrelevant to the present trial issues. See id. Defendants counter that Mr. Johnson’s
6
actions and statements to the police, including that he did not claim before or during the
7
preliminary hearing that he shot in self-defense, is relevant to the question of what the officers and
8
investigators knew up to and during the preliminary hearing. See Opp’n Pl. MIL 4.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Defendants additionally argued that all evidence presented at the preliminary hearing is
10
relevant to the element of materiality that must be established in a Brady claim. The Court
11
permitted supplemental briefing on this issue, see ECF No. 278, and Defendants timely filed a
12
brief, see Defs. Suppl. Br., ECF No. 281. Mr. Johnson’s deadline to respond has now passed, see
13
ECF No. 278, and the Court therefore considers only the arguments presented in the original
14
briefing and at oral argument.
15
As discussed at the hearing, the Court will permit Defendants to introduce evidence of
16
what was known to officers and investigators with respect to any self-defense claim or lack thereof
17
before and during the preliminary investigation, and to that extent DENIES IN PART Mr.
18
Johnson’s motion in limine.
19
With respect to Mr. Johnson’s request to exclude evidence or argument related to (1) Mr.
20
Johnson’s statement to the police that he was not involved in the underlying events, or (2) the fact
21
that Mr. Johnson did not call the police after the shooting, the Court finds that such evidence
22
would result in undue prejudice to Mr. Johnson that substantially outweighs the relevance of such
23
evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Court first notes that a Brady violation occurs when the
24
prosecution purposefully or inadvertently suppresses evidence favorable to the accused where the
25
evidence is material to either guilt or punishment. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432 (1995)
26
(citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)). Evidence is “material” for Brady purposes “if
27
there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of
28
Case No.: 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
4
1
the proceeding would have been different.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 (1999)
2
(citation omitted). There is a reasonable probability of a different result “when the government’s
3
evidentiary suppression ‘undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.’” Jackson v. Brown,
4
513 F.3d 1057, 1071 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434). A reasonable probability of
5
a different result may exist “where the remaining evidence would have been sufficient to convict
6
the defendant,” and does not require a finding that “the outcome would more likely than not have
7
been different.” Id. (citations omitted).
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Defendants argue that materiality may not be assessed without the presentation of all
evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing because “the context of the entire record” is
10
necessary to determine whether there is a “reasonable probability” that disclosure of the Brady
11
material would have changed the outcome. See Defs. Suppl. Br. 2 (citing, e.g., Browning v.
12
Baker, 875 F.3d 444, 486 (9th Cir. 2017)). As Defendants acknowledge, however, the cases
13
discussing the relevance of the context of the entire record have concerned the more typical Brady
14
challenge following a guilty verdict at trial, where the basis for the jury’s decision is unknown.
15
See id. Here, by contrast, Mr. Johnson was acquitted at trial, and challenges instead the result of
16
his preliminary hearing, where the magistrate discussed the reasoning behind her decision.
17
Although the Court understands that the magistrate considered everything presented, it does not
18
find appropriate the suggestion that the jury should revisit or relitigate the entire preliminary
19
hearing. Accordingly, the Court finds the evidence of Mr. Johnson’s statement of non-
20
involvement, and the fact that he did not himself call the police, is of low relevance to the issues at
21
trial—including the issue of materiality—given that the magistrate focused her reasoning almost
22
entirely on the fact of Mr. Johnson’s shooting the individuals, their injuries, and the evidence of
23
his intent. Further, the Court finds that the introduction of all evidence presented to the magistrate
24
at the preliminary hearing would cause undue delay and confuse the jury with respect to whether
25
they are being asked to reconsider the magistrate’s decision, as opposed to whether the Brady
26
evidence “undermines confidence” in the fairness of the preliminary hearing. See Jackson, 513
27
F.3d at 1071. The Court additionally finds that the evidence is likely to cause undue prejudice to
28
Case No.: 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
5
1
Mr. Johnson because it invites the jury to speculate negatively as to his character, rather than focus
2
on the fairness of the preliminary hearing. In considering the low relevance of the evidence and
3
the delay, confusion, and undue prejudice, the Court finds that the former is substantially
4
outweighed by the latter. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Mr.
5
Johnson’s Motion in Limine No. 4, such that Defendants may not introduce evidence that Mr.
6
Johnson did not call the police following the shooting, and that he stated to the police that he was
7
not involved in the shooting.
8
II.
Defendants filed seven motions in limine. See Defs. MILs 1–7, ECF Nos. 246–52. Mr.
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
10
Johnson opposed all but one of the motions. See Opp’ns Defs. MILs 1–7, ECF Nos. 269–75. The
11
Court addresses each in turn.
12
A.
13
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1. to Exclude Evidence or Argument
Regarding the Length of Mr. Johnson’s Incarceration, or Alternatively to
Bifurcate the Trial
14
In their first motion in limine, Defendants seek to exclude evidence or argument regarding
15
the length of Mr. Johnson’s incarceration on the basis that the Court’s dismissal of Mr. Johnson’s
16
Tatum claim renders such evidence irrelevant, and that any potential relevance would be
17
substantially outweighed by the potential for undue delay and jury confusion. See Defs. MIL 1.
18
Defendants further argue that the evidence, if admitted, should be relegated to a separate damages
19
phase of the trial. Mr. Johnson argues that the length of Mr. Johnson’s incarceration is
20
inextricably tied to the timeline of events that he must establish to show liability. See Opp’n Defs.
21
MIL 2.
22
The Court agrees with Defendants that the fact that Mr. Johnson remained incarcerated
23
prior to his trial is not relevant to Defendants’ liability on the remaining claims in this action. Mr.
24
Johnson may introduce all relevant timeline evidence without discussing the fact that he was
25
incarcerated at those times. Because the Court has determined that the trial shall be bifurcated into
26
liability and damages phases, it need not and does not at this time decide whether the evidence is
27
relevant to any potential damages. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’
28
Case No.: 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
6
1
Motion in Limine No. 1 with respect to the liability phase of the trial, and DEFERS ruling on this
2
motion with respect to the damages phase.
3
B.
4
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Evidence or Argument About
the Conditions of Mr. Johnson’s Confinement While Incarcerated
Defendants seek to exclude evidence of any alleged abuse or substandard jail conditions
5
that Mr. Johnson experienced while incarcerated on the grounds that such evidence is not relevant
6
to the remaining claims; that the evidence at issue would concern the purported actions of
7
defendants who are no longer in this action; and that such evidence would be highly prejudicial.
8
See Defs. MIL 2. Mr. Johnson responds that although he agrees that Defendants are not
9
responsible for any constitutional violations related to the conditions of his incarceration, the
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
evidence is relevant to Mr. Johnson’s emotional condition during his pretrial incarceration, and
thus to the question of damages. See Opp’n Defs. MIL 2.
Because the Court is bifurcating the trial and the evidence of Mr. Johnson’s conditions of
13
incarceration goes to damages, the Court DEFERS resolution of Defendants Motion in Limine No.
14
2 until Phase II of the trial.
15
16
17
C.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence or Argument That
Mr. Johnson was Found Not Guilty at Trial
Defendants next seek to exclude evidence of Mr. Johnson’s acquittal at trial on the ground
18
that the evidence is not relevant to the question of whether he received a fair preliminary hearing
19
under Brady. See Defs. MIL 3. Mr. Johnson counters that it would be highly prejudicial to
20
exclude such evidence because the jury will otherwise assume that he was convicted. See Opp’n
21
Defs. MIL 3.
22
As the Court explained at the hearing, it is concerned that the jury—which will learn in the
23
neutral statement of the case that Mr. Johnson shot two individuals—will presume that he was
24
found guilty unless informed otherwise. Such a presumption would be highly prejudicial to Mr.
25
Johnson’s case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3, but this
26
denial is without prejudice to the parties’ proposal of either a special instruction or a modified
27
neutral statement of the case addressing Mr. Johnson’s acquittal in an appropriate manner.
28
Case No.: 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
7
1
D.
2
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Evidence or Argument About
Issues Decided by the Court in Defendants’ Favor in the Court’s Summary
Judgment Order
In their fourth motion in limine, Defendants seek to exclude evidence on matters resolved
3
4
in Defendants’ favor in the Court’s summary judgment order, including, for example, issues of
fabrication of evidence in Mr. Johnson’s criminal prosecution, other officers’ failures to disclose
5
exculpatory evidence, the existence of probable cause to hold Mr. Johnson for trial, or the
6
7
existence of the City’s policy or custom of fabricating evidence or failing to preserve potentially
exculpatory evidence. See Defs. MIL 4. Mr. Johnson argues that evidence of Officer Tessler’s
8
failure to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence related to key fob data is relevant to the issue
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
of the City’s Monell liability for failure to investigate claims of missing or fabricated evidence.
See Opp’n Defs. MIL 4.
As the Court explained at the hearing, it appears that Mr. Johnson’s argument is based
upon a reading of the Court’s summary judgment order that permitted a Monell claim for a general
13
failure to train or investigate claims of missing or fabricated evidence. However, the summary
14
15
judgment order’s discussion of the remaining Monell claim is clearly restricted to failures related
to preservation or disclosure of DCS audio evidence of the sort at issue in Mr. Johnson’s
16
remaining Brady claim. See Order Summ. J. 23–24, ECF No. 217. Accordingly, the Court
17
18
GRANTS Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude evidence or argument about issues
decided in Defendants’ favor at summary judgment, including with respect to the key fob data, on
19
the ground that such evidence is not relevant to the remaining issues. See Fed. R. Evid. 401.
20
21
22
E.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence or Argument of Any
Category of Damages Not Identified Within Mr. Johnson’s Initial Disclosures
Defendants seek to exclude evidence or argument related to categories of evidence such as
23
alleged loss of income or medical bills that Mr. Johnson did not identify in his initial disclosures.
24
See Defs. MIL 5. Mr. Johnson does not oppose this motion. See Resp. Defs. MIL 5. The Court
25
agrees that such evidence is not relevant to the remaining issues, see Fed. R. Evid. 401, and
26
accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5.
27
28
Case No.: 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
8
1
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Evidence Not Presented at the
Preliminary Hearing
2
Defendants next seek to exclude evidence not presented at the preliminary hearing on the
3
ground that since Mr. Johnson was acquitted at trial, his Brady claim concerns only the evidence
4
that was presented at the preliminary hearing. See Defs. MIL 6. Mr. Johnson argues that he plans
5
to argue to the jury that although he did not present a self-defense argument at the preliminary
6
hearing, he would have done so had he then been aware of the missing audio files that are the basis
7
for his Brady claim. See Opp’n Defs. MIL 6.
8
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
F.
As discussed at the hearing, because the Court is denying Mr. Johnsons’ Motion in Limine
No. 4 to permit Defendants to introduce evidence of their awareness (or lack thereof) regarding
10
Mr. Johnson’s self-defense claim, it will also DENY IN PART Defendants’ Motion in Limine No.
11
6 to permit Mr. Johnson to testify that he would have made a self-defense claim at the preliminary
12
hearing had he known of the missing audio files. The Court otherwise GRANTS Defendants’
13
Motion in Limine No. 6.
14
15
G.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Testimony of Three Witnesses
Not Previously Identified by Mr. Johnson
Lastly, Defendants seek to exclude the testimony of Judy Lee, Cameron Bowman, and
16
Angela Johnson—all of whom Mr. Johnson listed as witnesses on his trial witness list—on the
17
ground the Mr. Johnson did not timely identify them in any initial or supplemental disclosures
18
prior to his trial witness list. See Defs. MIL 7. Mr. Johnson acknowledges that these three
19
witnesses were not identified prior to their inclusion on his witness list, but argues that they were
20
all identified in his operative complaint by their first and last name, along with their role in the
21
case. See Opp’n Defs. MIL 7.
22
At the hearing, Mr. Johnson stated that he was removing Ms. Johnson from his witness list.
23
He additionally informed the Court that his intent with respect to the testimony of Ms. Lee and
24
Mr. Bowman—respectively, the assistant district attorney prosecuting his criminal case and his
25
defense attorney—is to introduce evidence to timestamp the efforts to obtain the missing audio
26
files presently subject to his Brady challenge. The Court encouraged Mr. Johnson to obtain
27
28
Case No.: 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
9
1
declarations from Ms. Lee and Mr. Bowman with respect to the testimony each would provide if
2
called as a witness, and to provide such declarations to Defendants. Defendants indicated that if
3
they received such declarations and the contents merely confirmed information not in dispute, then
4
it might become apparent to the parties that Ms. Lee and Mr. Bowman are not necessary as the
5
witnesses through whom such evidence is introduced at trial. Accordingly, the Court at present
6
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7. If Defendants do not
7
receive the declarations or have other concerns as to their contents, Defendants may later timely
8
raise this issue.
9
III.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. The trial shall be bifurcated into two phases, with Phase II concerning Defendants’
12
liability on all remaining claims, and Phase II concerning damages on any claims
13
for which Defendants are found liable.
14
2. Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 are GRANTED.
15
3. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 3 is DEFERRED to Phase II.
16
4. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 is DENIED IN PART with respect to
17
Defendants’ ability to introduce evidence regarding what was known to the police
18
and prosecution with regard to Mr. Johnson’s self-defense claim, and GRANTED
19
IN PART, such that Defendants may not introduce evidence that Mr. Johnson did
20
not call the police following the shooting and that he stated to the police that he
21
was not involved in the shooting.
22
5. Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 are DEFERRED to Phase II. Mr.
23
Johnson may introduce all necessary evidence regarding the timeline of events, but
24
may not introduce the fact that Mr. Johnson was incarcerated during that period.
25
6. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 is DENIED. The parties may propose a
26
related special instruction or modified neutral statement related to Mr. Johnson’s
27
acquittal.
28
Case No.: 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
10
1
7. Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 4 and 5 are GRANTED.
2
8. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 is DENIED IN PART, such that Mr. Johnson
3
may testify that he would have made a self-defense claim at the preliminary hearing
4
had he known of the missing audio files, and otherwise GRANTED.
5
9. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to Angela
6
Johnson, and otherwise DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to Judy
7
Lee and Cameron Bowman. Mr. Johnson is encouraged to obtain and provide to
8
Defendants declarations from Ms. Lee and Mr. Bowman, and Defendants may raise
9
this motion if later necessary.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2024
14
15
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 18-cv-06264-EJD
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?