Silva v. City and County of Honolulu

Filing 352

ORDER # 2 ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE re 271 , 272 , 275 , 276 , 278 , 279 , 280 , 281 , 282 , 283 , 284 , 338 , 344 - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 5/21/2019. Defendants' Motion in L imine No. 1 To Exclude Expert Opinions By Richard Lichten (ECF No. 271 ) is DENIED . Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 To Invoke the Witness Exclusionary Rule (ECF No. 272 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' M otion In Limine No. 5 To Exclude References To Other Incidents Of Police Misconduct Or Brutality (ECF No. 275 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 6 (ECF No. 276 ) is GRANTED, IN PART, as to the images that are unnecessary, cumulative, and inflammatory. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 7 To Exclude Any Request For Punitive Damages, And Any Argument Or Evidence Of Indemnification (ECF No. 277 ) is GRANTED, IN PART . Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 8 To Preclude Evidence Or Reference To Unplead Or Dismissed Claims (ECF No. 278 ) is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 9 To Preclude Evidence Of Sheldo n Haleck's Feelings (ECF No. 279 ) is GRANTED, IN PART. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 10 To Exclude All Testimony And Evidence Of Personal Loss Experienced By Individuals Other Than Sheldon Haleck (ECF No. 280 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 11 To Exclude All Lay Testimony Regarding The Existence Of Taser Wounds, Marks, And Probes And/Or Any Witness Without Personal Knowledge That Sheldon Haleck Was Tasered, And/Or Reasonab leness Of The Use Of Force (ECF No. 281 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 12 To Exclude Inflammatory Descriptions Of Decedent's Death (ECF No. 282 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 13 To Exclude Queens Medical Center Doctors And Nurses From Opining On Cause Of Death Or The Existence Of Taser Probe Wounds Or Marks (ECF No. 283 is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 14 To Exclude Any Evidence Or Testimony Regarding HPD Policy Or Training (ECF No. 284 ) is DENIED. (emt, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CHRISTOPHER CHUNG; SAMANTHA
)
CRITCHLOW; AND STEPHEN KARDASH, )
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
GULSTAN E. SILVA, JR., as
Personal Representative of the
Estate of Sheldon Paul Haleck,

Civil No. 15-00436 HG-KJM

ORDER #2 ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS BY RICHARD LICHTEN (ECF No.
271) is DENIED
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 seeks to exclude
Plaintiff’s expert on police practices, Mr. Richard Lichten, on
the basis that he is not qualified to provide expert opinions.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that “scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge” by a qualified expert
is admissible if it will “help the trier of fact to understand
the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”

Fed. R. Civ. P.

702.
The United States Supreme Court held in Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993) that the District Court has
1

a gatekeeping responsibility to objectively screen expert
testimony to ensure that it is not only relevant, but reliable.
The District Court’s obligation applies to technical and other
specialized knowledge as well as testimony based on scientific
knowledge.

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141-42

(1999).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that expert
testimony is relevant if the evidence logically advances a
material aspect of the party’s case.

Estate of Barabin v.

AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457, 463-64 (9th Cir. 2014).

The

Court must consider if an expert’s testimony has a reliable basis
in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline.
Kumho, 526 U.S. at 149.
Expert opinion evidence that logically advances a material
aspect of the party’s case or is helpful to the jury is relevant.
Cooper v. Brown, 510 F.3d 870, 942 (9th Cir. 2007).

An expert’s

testimony need not go to an ultimate issue to be relevant
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Smith v. Ford Motor

Co., 215 F.3d 713, 721 (7th Cir. 2000).
Mr. Lichten bases his expert opinions upon his thirty years
of experience and the written policies of the Honolulu Police
Department.

Mr. Lichten has been certified as an expert by

numerous federal and state courts in the field of police
practices.

The Court finds that Mr. Lichten has the requisite

2

skill, education, training, and experience to testify as an
expert about police practices.
Qualified experts, such as Mr. Lichten, may testify about
police practices and whether the particular actions of a police
officer in a given situation comports with law enforcement’s
standards.

M.R. v. City of Azusa, 2014 WL 12839737, *8 (C.D.

Cal. Oct. 1, 2014) (finding Mr. Lichten was permitted to provide
expert testimony about police practices standards and whether a
reasonable officer would have acted as the defendant officer in
the situation at issue); Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689,
703 (9th Cir. 2005) (admitting expert testimony that relied on a
department’s written standards and training in discussing whether
the officers’ conduct comported with the law enforcement’s
standards).
Mr. Lichten may not testify, however, about facts that are
not in evidence.

Defendants argue that Mr. Lichten’s report is

based on facts that do no exist, specifically that Haleck was
dragged by the Defendant Officers and that the Taser’s probes
actually penetrated Haleck’s skin.

Mr. Lichten is precluded from

testifying about such information if there is no evidentiary
basis presented at trial.
Mr. Lichten also may not testify as to the ultimate legal
conclusion as to whether an individual Defendant Officer used
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the

3

United States Constitution.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 To Exclude Expert
Opinions By Richard Lichten (ECF No. 271) is DENIED.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
MOTION TO ENFORCE THE WITNESS EXCLUSIONARY RULE (ECF No. 272) is
GRANTED
Federal Rule of Evidence 615, known as the witness
exclusionary rule, provides:
At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses
excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’
testimony. Or the court may do so on its own. But
this rule does not authorize excluding:
(a)

a party who is a natural person;

(b)

an officer or employee of a party that is not
a natural person, after being designated as
the party’s representative by its attorney;

(c)

a person whose presence a party shows to be
essential to presenting the party’s claim or
defense; or

(d)

a person authorized by statute to be present.

Fed. R. Evid. 615.
Defendants request to invoke the witness exclusionary rule.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 To Invoke the Witness
Exclusionary Rule (ECF No. 272) is GRANTED.

Witnesses are

excluded from sitting in the gallery of the courtroom until after
they have completed their testimony.

If there is a possibility

of a witness being re-called for rebuttal or called by the
4

opposing side, the witness remains excluded.

The attorneys for

the Parties must obtain a waiver to the Witness Exclusionary Rule
from the Court for any witness to be present in the Courtroom.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3
MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DRUG USE AND DRUG USE ON THE
DAY OF THE INCIDENT (ECF No. 273)

The ruling on Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 is set
forth in the Court’s Order #3 on Motions in Limine.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF HALECK’S ACCIDENTS AND INJURIES
SUSTAINED ONE DAY PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT (ECF No. 274)

The ruling on Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 is set
forth in the Court’s Order #3 on Motions in Limine.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5
MOTION TO EXCLUDE REFERENCES TO OTHER INCIDENTS OF POLICE
MISCONDUCT OR BRUTALITY (ECF No. 275) is GRANTED
Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from introducing other
unrelated incidents of police misconduct or alleged brutality as
such evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial.
Plaintiff has not put forward any evidence that he seeks to
introduce of other incidents or police misconduct or brutality.
Plaintiff, however, opposes the Motion on the basis that he may

5

want to rebut the Defendants’ contention that Tasers cannot cause
serious injury or death.

He also claims that other incidents may

be relevant for damages.
Other acts evidence is not admissible pursuant to Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b) except for limited purposes such as knowledge and
intent.

Plaintiff has not put forward any other incidents that

he wishes to introduce as relevant or admissible pursuant to Fed.
R. Evid. 401, 402, or 404(b).

In addition, such evidence is

likely inadmissible as unduly prejudicial pursuant to Fed. R.
Evid. 403.

Courts have regularly held that evidence of other

unrelated incidents of police misconduct is inadmissible.

Duran

v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000)
(evidence of another unrelated shooting involving the officer
defendant was not admissible as unduly prejudicial); Castro v.
Cnty. of Los Angeles, 2015 WL 4694070, *11-*12 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3,
2015) (evidence of police killings of civilians in other cases
and the protests related thereto was inadmissible); Puckett v.
Zamora, 2015 WL 3869662, *2 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2015) (evidence
of other unrelated incidents were inadmissible).
Defendants’ Motion In Limine No. 5 To Exclude References To
Other Incidents Of Police Misconduct Or Brutality (ECF No. 275)
is GRANTED.
Plaintiff may not present other such incidents without
providing notice and an opportunity for Defendants’ to object

6

outside of the hearing of the jury.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
MOTION TO PRECLUDE PREJUDICIAL PICTURES (ECF No. 276) is GRANTED,
IN PART

Defendants seek to exclude unnecessarily gruesome and
inflammatory pictures of the Decedent, including pictures of his
brain, private parts, and other prejudicial matters.
Plaintiff specifically seeks to introduce the autopsy photos
set forth in Exhibits 27 and 28 as he claims the exhibits contain
the only images depicting the extent of the Decedent’s injuries.
Relevant evidence is admissible unless its probative value
is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting
time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Fed. R.

Evid. 403.
Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when its probative value
is outweighed because of its ability to appeal to the jury’s
sympathies, arouse jurors’ sense of horror, provoke a jury’s
instinct to punish, and trigger other intense human reactions.
WEINSTEIN’S FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 403.04[1][c]; Sanchez v. Jiles,
2012 WL 13005996, *5 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2012) (explaining that
autopsy photos have a strong possibility to inflame the juror’s
sympathies and excluding cumulative and inflammatory photos as
prejudicial).
7

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 (ECF No. 276) is GRANTED,
IN PART, as to images that are unnecessary, cumulative, and
inflammatory.
The Parties have agreed to review the numerous pictures they
have included in the exhibits and provide the Court the actual
pictures they wish to enter into evidence.
If the Parties cannot agree as to the photographs to present
to the jury, the Court will rule on the specific photographs to
be admitted into evidence.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7
MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND ANY
ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE OF INDEMNIFICATION (ECF No. 277) is GRANTED,
IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART
Defendants seek to preclude evidence of indemnification of
the Defendant Officers by the City and County of Honolulu.
Defendants also seek to preclude evidence and argument relating
to punitive damages against the Defendant Officers.
A.

Indemnification

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 first requests to
preclude any evidence or argument of indemnification of the
individual Officers by the City and County of Honolulu for any
damages award.
Plaintiff does not oppose this portion of the Motion and
8

agrees that evidence and argument about indemnification is
impermissible.
B.

Punitive Damages

Defendants’ Motion also seeks to preclude Plaintiff from
seeking punitive damages from the individual Defendant Officers
based upon the rulings in the Court’s June 28, 2017 Order on the
Motions for Summary Judgment.
The Parties did not raise the issue of punitive damages
against the Officers for an excessive force claim pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 in the Motions for Summary Judgment.

The Court’s

Order on Summary Judgment only ruled on the issue of the
Defendant Officers’ conditional privilege pursuant to Hawaii
state law.

The Court found that there was no evidence of “actual

malice” for purposes of conditional privilege.

(Order at pp. 54-

55, ECF No. 224).
The standard for punitive damages pursuant to Section 1983
is not limited to actual malice.

Punitive damages in Section

1983 cases “mirrors the standard for punitive damages under
common law tort cases.”
Cir. 2005).

Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807 (9th

A “jury may award punitive damages under Section

1983 either when a defendant’s conduct was driven by evil motive
or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference
to the constitutional rights of others.”

9

Id.

The Court reserves ruling on whether an instruction on
punitive damages is necessary until after the evidence is
presented at trial.

The Parties may not reference punitive

damages to the jury until a determination is made as to whether
there is sufficient evidence to warrant putting the issue of
punitive damages before the jury.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 To Exclude Any Request
For Punitive Damages, And Any Argument Or Evidence Of
Indemnification (ECF No. 277) is GRANTED, IN PART.
The Motion is granted as to evidence of indemnification.

A

ruling on the issue of punitive damages would be premature.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8
MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR REFERENCE TO UNPLEAD OR
DISMISSED CLAIMS (ECF No. 278) is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED,
IN PART
A.

Dismissed Claims Against The City and Other Defendants

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 seeks to preclude
evidence relating to the claims that were dismissed as to the
City and County of Honolulu and former Police Chief Louis
Kealoha.
Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ Motion No. 8 on these
grounds.

10

B.

Evidence of Training Materials

Defendants’ Motion also seeks to preclude evidence relating
to the Honolulu Police Department’s training.

Such evidence is

relevant and admissible as discussed in the ruling on Defendants’
Motion in Limine No. 14 below.
C.

Evidence Of Deliberate Indifference

Defendants assert that Plaintiff should be precluded from
presenting any evidence or argument of unplead claims,
specifically claims for deliberate indifference to the Decedent’s
medical needs.
No claim for deliberate indifference against the three named
Defendant Officers has been asserted.

Plaintiff is precluded

from making any arguments concerning deliberate indifference.
Deliberate indifference claims are distinct and have completely
different legal standards from excessive force claims.

See e.g.,

Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir.
2016).
Here, Plaintiff’s claim is limited to purported violations
of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the
force used by the three Defendant Officers in relation to the
incident of March 16, 2015.

Any purported acts or omissions

relating to a claim for deliberate indifference were never plead
and are not an issue before the jury.
11

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 To Preclude Evidence Or
Reference To Unplead Or Dismissed Claims (ECF No. 278) is
GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9
MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF SHELDON HALECK’S FEELINGS (ECF No.
279) is GRANTED, IN PART
Defendants seek to exclude evidence as to the Decedent’s
feelings.
Plaintiff opposes the Motion and argues that such evidence
is relevant to damages, including the Decedent’s pain and
suffering.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701, a lay witness may
provide testimony in the form of an opinion if it is limited to
one that is:
(a)

rationally based on the witness’s perception;

(b)

helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s
testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and

(c)

not based on scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

Fed. R. Evid. 701.
A lay witness may not speculate and may not state what he or
she believes the Decedent may have been thinking or feeling with
respect to the March 16, 2015 incident.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 9 To Preclude Evidence Of
Sheldon Haleck’s Feelings (ECF No. 279) is GRANTED, IN PART.
12

The lay witnesses may testify as to their own perceptions
and own observations including whether they observed the Decedent
appear to experience pain.

Moreno v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff’s

Dept., 2015 WL 4652637, *8 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2015) (citing Jones
v. Warmee, 225 F.2d 258, 260 (9th Cir. 1955)(lay witnesses are
competent to testify to observed pain and suffering caused by
injuries)).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10
MOTION TO EXCLUDE ALL TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF PERSONAL LOSS
EXPERIENCED BY INDIVIDUALS OTHER THAN SHELDON HALECK (ECF No.
280) is GRANTED
In the Court’s June 28, 2017 Order, it ruled that the only
remaining Plaintiff is Gulstan E. Silva, Jr., as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Sheldon Paul Haleck.
Plaintiff concedes that he is not seeking any damages on
behalf of any other party.
the Decedent.

Damages are limited to the Estate of

The family members of the Decedent may testify as

to the loss experienced by the Decedent and his Estate, including
compensatory damages and hedonic damages that are relevant for
the jury.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 10 To Exclude All Testimony
And Evidence Of Personal Loss Experienced By Individuals Other
Than Sheldon Haleck (ECF No. 280) is GRANTED.

13

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11
MOTION TO EXCLUDE ALL LAY TESTIMONY REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF
TASER WOUNDS, MARKS, AND PROBES AND/OR ANY WITNESS WITHOUT
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT SHELDON HALECK WAS TASERED, AND/OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE USE OF FORCE (ECF No. 281) is GRANTED
Defendants seek to preclude any lay witness from providing
opinion testimony about the use of Tasers, the Officers’ use of
force, and whether a Taser caused marks and wounds on the
Decedent’s body.

Specifically, Defendants seek to preclude such

testimony from the Decedent’s father who was an agent with the
Drug Enforcement Administration.

The Decedent’s father was never

noticed as an expert witness and did not provide an expert
report.
The matters involving police practices and the use of Tasers
are matters which require specialized or technical knowledge that
require expert testimony.

Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Such testimony requires disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26.
The Decedent’s father was not disclosed as an expert and may
not testify as an expert regarding Tasers, use of force, or
police practices.
Testimony as to a Taser wound or mark on the Decedent’s body
requires either expert testimony or lay opinion testimony based
on personal observation.

A lay witness may testify as to a Taser

mark based on his or her own personal observation such as that a
14

Taser probe caused the mark.

Fed. R. Evid. 701.

There is no

evidence that the Decedent’s father was present at the scene of
the incident or personally observed a Taser probe cause any
specific marks on the Decedent’s body.

There must be an offer of

proof to establish a basis for the Decedent’s father to testify
about the existence of marks or wounds that were caused by a
Taser before he is allowed to testify to such information.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 11 To Exclude All Lay
Testimony Regarding The Existence Of Taser Wounds, Marks, And
Probes And/Or Any Witness Without Personal Knowledge That Sheldon
Haleck Was Tasered, And/Or Reasonableness Of The Use Of Force
(ECF No. 281) is GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12
MOTION TO EXCLUDE INFLAMMATORY DESCRIPTIONS OF DECEDENT’S DEATH
(ECF No. 282) is GRANTED
Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from arguing or
eliciting testimony that the Decedent was “murdered” or was the
victim of a criminal act.
Defendants also seek to preclude Plaintiff from eliciting
testimony from any non-expert witnesses as to the term
“homicide.”
Plaintiff agrees to instruct his witness not to use
inflammatory terms or phrases.
The meaning of “homicide” for purposes of this case is
15

limited to the autopsy report and the death certificate.

The

term “homicide” cannot be put before the jury until the term has
been explained by the medical experts Dr. Christopher Happy
and/or Dr. Stacey Hail.

Only the two qualified medical experts

may explain the meaning of “homicide” within the context of the
autopsy report and the death certificate.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 12 To Exclude Inflammatory
Descriptions Of Decedent’s Death (ECF No. 282) is GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13
MOTION TO EXCLUDE QUEENS MEDICAL CENTER DOCTORS AND NURSES FROM
OPINING ON CAUSE OF DEATH OR THE EXISTENCE OF TASER PROBE WOUNDS
OR MARKS (ECF No. 283) is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART
Defendants seek to preclude testimony from the Queen’s
Medical Center doctors and nurses who treated the Decedent.
Defendants claim that any testimony from Queen’s Medical Center
Staff would have been required to be disclosed pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26 and subject to Daubert.
A treating physician is not considered an expert witness if
he or she testifies about personal observations.
194 F.3d 116, 1138 (10th Cir. 1999).

Davoll v. Webb,

A physician or nurse may

testify regarding factual matters appropriate for a lay witness
such as the presence of swelling or bruising following an
accident.

Bryan v. Whitfield, 2015 WL 11109792, *2 (N.D. Fla.

July 15, 2015); see Reardon v. Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co.,
16

2011 WL 13234275, *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 31, 2011).
Here, the treating doctors and nurses from Queen’s Medical
Center may testify as to their personal observations.

The staff

members may not provide expert testimony as they were not
disclosed as experts and did not provide expert reports.

The

staff may testify about treatment of the Decedent following the
incident on March 16, 2015, including the existence of Taser
probe wounds if such information is based on their personal
observations.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 13 To Exclude Queens
Medical Center Doctors And Nurses From Opining On Cause Of Death
Or The Existence Of Taser Probe Wounds Or Marks (ECF No. 283 is
GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 14
MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REGARDING HPD POLICY
OR TRAINING (ECF No. 284) is DENIED
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 14 seeks to preclude any
evidence as to the Defendant Officers’ training.
Plaintiff opposes the Motion.

Plaintiff asserts that

although there is not a negligent training cause of action
remaining against the City, evidence as to the Defendant
Officers’ training is relevant.
The evidence of the Honolulu Police Department’s policies
and training of the Defendant Officers before the incident is
17

relevant and admissible.

Specifically, the evidence is relevant

to the Defendant Officers’ understanding of the protocols for use
of force and the core issues at trial.
Plaintiff agrees that there will be no evidence of any
changes to the Honolulu Police Department’s policies or training
after the incident and no evidence of any subsequent remedial
measures.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 14 To Exclude Any Evidence
Or Testimony Regarding HPD Policy Or Training (ECF No. 284) is
DENIED.

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 To Exclude Expert
Opinions By Richard Lichten (ECF No. 271) is DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 To Invoke the Witness
Exclusionary Rule (ECF No. 272) is GRANTED.
Defendants’ Motion In Limine No. 5 To Exclude References To
Other Incidents Of Police Misconduct Or Brutality (ECF No. 275)
is GRANTED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 (ECF No. 276) is GRANTED,
IN PART, as to the images that are unnecessary, cumulative, and
inflammatory.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 To Exclude Any Request
For Punitive Damages, And Any Argument Or Evidence Of
18

Indemnification (ECF No. 277) is GRANTED, IN PART .
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 To Preclude Evidence Or
Reference To Unplead Or Dismissed Claims (ECF No. 278) is
GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 9 To Preclude Evidence Of
Sheldon Haleck’s Feelings (ECF No. 279) is GRANTED, IN PART.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 10 To Exclude All Testimony
And Evidence Of Personal Loss Experienced By Individuals Other
Than Sheldon Haleck (ECF No. 280) is GRANTED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 11 To Exclude All Lay
Testimony Regarding The Existence Of Taser Wounds, Marks, And
Probes And/Or Any Witness Without Personal Knowledge That Sheldon
Haleck Was Tasered, And/Or Reasonableness Of The Use Of Force
(ECF No. 281) is GRANTED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 12 To Exclude Inflammatory
Descriptions Of Decedent’s Death (ECF No. 282) is GRANTED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 13 To Exclude Queens
Medical Center Doctors And Nurses From Opining On Cause Of Death
Or The Existence Of Taser Probe Wounds Or Marks (ECF No. 283 is
GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 14 To Exclude Any Evidence
Or Testimony Regarding HPD Policy Or Training (ECF No. 284) is
DENIED.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 21, 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Gulstan E. Silva, Jr. as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Sheldon Haleck v. Christopher Chung; Samathan Critchlow; and
Stephen Kardash, Civil No. 15-00436 HG-KJM; ORDER #2 ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
20