Brooks v. Munoz et al

Filing 128

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 121 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 2/24/14.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RODNEY BROOKS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

A. MUNOZ, et al.

14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 10cv277 JAH (NLS)
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
STRIKE
[Dkt. No. 121]

15
16

Plaintiff Rodney Brooks is a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis. On August 20, 2012, Brooks filed a motion to exclude the “expert testimony”

18

of defendants Munoz and Endrozo. [Dkt. No. 67.] The court granted that motion and

19

excluded Munoz and Endrozo from testifying as experts because their testimony would

20

be cumulative of the other designated expert, Special Agent Epperson, and because their

21

testimony as experts would be prejudicial. [Dkt. No. 80.] The court did not exclude

22

Munoz and Endrozo from testifying as lay witnesses. Id.

23

Over a year later, Defendants, in their expert disclosure dated December 5, 2013,

24

incorrrectly re-designated Munoz and Endrozo as expert witnesses. They also designated

25

defendants Hernandez, Cobb, Morris, Reid, Talbert, Steele and Contreras to testify as

26

experts. They say they did this inadvertently, and now withdraw the expert designations

27

of all Defendants. Opp’n, p.2 [Dkt. No. 123]. The court notes that those Defendants may

28

testify as percipient witnesses on their own behalf.
1

10cv277 JAH (NLS)

1

Also in the December 5, 2013 re-designation, Defendants designated Special Agent

2

Steve Epperson, who they named as an expert in their original designation, and whose

3

designation this court approved. But Defendants also designated four non-party

4

employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as

5

“percipient witnesses who were involved in the process of Plaintiff’s prison-gang

6

validation...[and who] should be allowed to provide expert testimony as to the policies

7

and procedures they and Defendants relied upon in acting as they did during Plaintiff’s

8

gang-validation procedures.” Opp’n, p.2. All four proposed expert witnesses “will

9

testify as to the CDCR’s gang validation procedures, whether those procedures were

10

properly applied and followed by Defendants in this case . . . , how they were applied,

11

and whether the evidence used to validate Plaintiff was reliable and sufficient to do so.”

12

Opp’n, p.4.

13

As this court already explained in its November 9, 2012 order, a court may exclude

14

cumulative expert testimony. United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 431 F.3d 643, 659-660

15

(9th Cir. 2005). Here, Epperson, the prison gang expert assigned to R.J. Donovan

16

Correctional Facility, will testify as to gang validation proceedings at both the

17

institutional and review levels, including Plaintiff’s gang validation proceedings and the

18

operations of the Mexican Mafia. Opp’n, p.3; Dkt. No. 72, p.4. The proposed testimony

19

of the four non-parties Contreras, Rosenkrans, Marquez, and Harrison appears cumulative

20

of Epperson’s testimony. Defendants do not cite to any distinct policies or procedures

21

that any of these non-parties will testify to or how their testimony will otherwise differ

22

from Eppard’s and from each other’s testimony. See Engman v. City of Ontario, No. 10-

23

284, 2011 WL 2463178, at *13-14 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2011) (determining two expert’s

24

testimony is cumulative if there is a significant overlap). Therefore, the court finds that

25

the proposed testimony of the proposed “non-party experts” significantly overlaps with

26

Epperson’s testimony, and therefore, is cumulative.

27
28

Further, the non-parties are, according to Defendants, percipient witnesses in this
case. Again, as the court already explained in its November 9, 2012 order:
2

10cv277 JAH (NLS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

A witness’s dual role of being a lay witness and expert witness
creates concerns such as “unmerited credibility” for lay
testimony, an increased danger of conveying the witness’s
sweeping conclusions, and difficulty for some jurors to
determine the line between lay testimony and expert testimony.
U.S. v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893, 904 (9th Cir. 2007). [Nonparties Contreras, Rosenkrans, Marquez, and Harrison] intend
to explain to the jury their actions in Plaintiff’s gang validation
proceedings. In doing so, it appears that [Contreras,
Rosenkrans, Marquez, and Harrison] are likely to provide
conclusions that justify their actions. It is also possible that
[Contreras, Rosenkrans, Marquez, and Harrison] will receive
“unmerited credibility” on their factual story due to their
capacity as experts. This Court, therefore, finds that allowing
[Contreras, Rosenkrans, Marquez, and Harrison] to testify as
experts is prejudicial.

9
10

Dkt. No. 80 p.4.

11

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED: February 24, 2014

14
15
16

Hon. Nita L. Stormes
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

10cv277 JAH (NLS)