Holmes v. Estock et al

Filing 208

NOTICE and ORDER Providing Tentative Rulings Re: Daubert Motions 200 , Motions in Limine 201 , and Objections 196 . Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 12/6/23.(aas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

CHARLES HOLMES,

Case No.: 16-cv-2458-MMA-BLM
Plaintiff,

v.

NOTICE AND ORDER PROVIDING
TENTATIVE RULINGS RE:
DAUBERT MOTIONS, MOTIONS IN
LIMINE, AND OBJECTIONS

DR. ESTOCK, et al.,

16

Defendants.

[Doc. Nos. 196, 200, 201]

17
18
19
20

On December 12, 2023, the parties in this action will appear before the Court for a

21

final pretrial conference and hearing on Plaintiff’s Daubert motions, motions in limine,

22

and objections to pretrial disclosures. See Doc. Nos. 196, 200, 201. In anticipation of the

23

hearing, the Court issues the following tentative rulings on the pending motions and

24

objections.
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS

25
26

1.

The Court tentatively SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s pretrial objection to

27

Defendants’ previously undisclosed witnesses. As Defendants have not responded to

28

Plaintiff’s objections, the Court tentatively finds that Defendants’ failure to disclose these
-1-

16-cv-2458-MMA-BLM

1

witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 was not substantially justified

2

or harmless and that these witnesses are therefore subject to exclusion under Federal Rule

3

of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).

4

2.

The Court tentatively OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection to Defendants’

5

exhibits for failure to identify each exhibit by Bates stamp number. The Court tentatively

6

finds that Plaintiff’s ability to identify and object to Defendants’ exhibits renders

7

Defendants’ noncompliance with Civil Local Rule 16.1.f.2.c harmless.

8
9

3.

The Court tentatively OVERRULES all of Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections

without prejudice to raising these objections at trial. The Court tentatively finds it

10

cannot determine the admissibility of Defendants’ exhibits until the Court receives the

11

exhibits and Defendants seek to offer them into evidence.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

12
13
14
15

1.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to appear at

trial unshackled and in court-appropriate civilian attire.
2.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to exclude

16

evidence, testimony, or reference to his criminal history from all phases of trial, for any

17

purpose, including: (1) any contacts with law enforcement; (2) any criminal charges or

18

convictions; (3) any sentence that Mr. Holmes is serving or may serve; and (4) any

19

documents pertaining to Mr. Holmes’s criminal history pursuant to Federal Rules of

20

Evidence 402 and 403.

21

3.

The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to preclude Defendants

22

from objecting to Plaintiff’s deposition and documentary evidence for failure to raise

23

timely objections to his pretrial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24

26(a)(3)(B). The Court tentatively finds that good cause exists to exclude Defendants’

25

noncompliance as the result would be unduly harsh and the request is overly broad.

26

4.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to exclude

27

nonparty witnesses from the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying pursuant to

28

Federal Rule of Evidence 615.
-2-

16-cv-2458-MMA-BLM

1

5.

The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to exclude all evidence,

2

arguments, and references to “drug-seeking” behavior without prejudice. The Court

3

tentatively finds that this evidence is relevant and that any risk of prejudice does not

4

outweigh its probative value. The Court further tentatively finds that this evidence is not

5

character evidence to the extent it is not being offered to prove Plaintiff acted in

6

accordance with a particular trait on a later occasion. Accordingly, the Court tentatively

7

finds this evidence is not subject to exclusion under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and

8

404.

9

6.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to exclude

10

evidence, arguments, and reference to any inoperative complaints pursuant to Federal

11

Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.
PLAINTIFF’S DAUBERT MOTIONS

12
13
14
15

1.

The Court tentatively GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Bennett Feinberg.
A.

The Court tentatively finds that Dr. Feinberg’s expert opinions that:

16

he can find no support in the medical record for deliberate indifference; and

17

Holmes’ chronic urological condition has been appropriately managed with due

18

care to his needs, are subject to exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and

19

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Medical

20

expert witnesses cannot testify to legal conclusions, nor can they testify using such

21

legally significant terms. See United States v. Tamman, 782 F.3d 543, 552 (9th

22

Cir. 2015). Moreover, the Court tentatively finds that Dr. Feinberg lacks the

23

necessary qualifications to reliably testify to the appropriateness of the treatment

24

Plaintiff received for his urological condition, including pain medication.

25

B.

The Court tentatively finds that Dr. Feinberg’s opinions regarding the

26

cause of Plaintiff’s bacterial infection are not subject to exclusion. However, the

27

Court tentatively finds that Dr. Feinberg cannot testify to the cause of the infection

28

as a matter of fact as this fact is in dispute.
-3-

16-cv-2458-MMA-BLM

1

C.

The Court tentatively finds that Dr. Feinberg’s opinions regarding the

2

lack of “underhanded motives” leading to Plaintiff’s prison transfer are beyond the

3

scope of his expert designation, not based on a reliable methodology, and subject

4

to exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

5

D.

The Court tentatively finds that Dr. Feinberg’s opinions about “drug-

6

seeking” behaviors are not subject to exclusion. Further, while the Court

7

tentatively finds that Dr. Feinberg’s testimony regarding Holmes’ pain

8

management is subject to exclusion, his testimony regarding the standard of pain

9

management in the prison context and with respect to “drug-seeking” behavior is

10

not subject to exclusion.

11

E.

The Court tentatively finds that Dr. Feinberg’s opinions regarding

12

Plaintiff’s grievances are moot and therefore not relevant and subject to exclusion

13

under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

14

2.

15

The Court tentatively GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Richard Boxer.

16

A.

The Court tentatively finds that Dr. Boxer’s opinion that there is no

17

evidence of deliberate indifference is subject to exclusion under Federal Rule of

18

Evidence 702 and Daubert, 509 U.S. 579.

19

B.

The Court tentatively finds that Dr. Boxer is sufficiently qualified to

20

testify to the standard of pain management treatment for urological conditions and

21

that Plaintiff’s arguments in this respect go towards credibility and the weight of

22

this evidence.

23

As these rulings are tentative, the Court looks forward to the oral arguments of

24
25
26
27
28

counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 6, 2023

_____________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge
-4-

16-cv-2458-MMA-BLM