Crawford v. Sandy, City of et al

Filing 123

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting 102 Motion to Rule on Objections in Videotaped Deposition of Officer Jesse Frampton. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 09/11/2012. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

BRAD CRAWFORD,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON MOTION TO RULE ON
OBJECTIONS IN VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION OF OFFICER JESSE
FRAMPTON

v.

SANDY CITY CORPORATION and
OFFICER RYAN METCALF, in his
individual capacity,

Case No. 2:11-CV-351 TS

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Rule on Objections in
Videotaped Deposition of Officer Jesse Frampton.1
Plaintiff objects to the testimony on page 7:1-18 of the deposition on the ground that it is
inadmissible hearsay. This testimony is not hearsay because it is not being offered for the truth
of the matter asserted, but to explain the investigation the officer conducted.2 Plaintiff also
1

Docket No. 102.

2

Fed. R. Evid. 801.
1

argues that the testimony is not relevant because there is no evidence that the information in this
passage was communicated to Officer Metcalf. If Defendants can show that this information
informed Officer Metcalf’s decision to arrest and initiate prosecution of Plaintiff, then this
testimony will be admissible.
Plaintiff also objects to the testimony on page 11:3-19. As Defendants have not
responded to the objection, the Court will sustain the objection.
Plaintiff next objects to the testimony on page 12:5-15 on the grounds that it is hearsay
and represents facts beyond Officer Frampton’s personal knowledge. Defendants respond that
the testimony is admissible because it is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted and
as an admission by a party opponent. Plaintiff responds that because Officer Frampton did not
interview Plaintiff, this testimony actually reflects what Officer Metcalf told Officer Frampton
that Plaintiff said. Unless Defendants can show that Plaintiff made this statement directly to
Officer Frampton, the Court will sustain the objection because the statement is being offered for
the truth of the matter asserted by Officer Metcalf—that Mr. Crawford stated that the dogs
flipped the table.
Finally, Plaintiff objects to testimony on pages 29:12-13, 34:5-11, and 38:4-39:5. All of
this testimony concerns the “Lethality Assessment.” Consistent with the Court’s ruling on the
admissibility of the Lethality Assessment,3 the Court will sustain the objection in part and
exclude this testimony as evidence of Officer Metcalf’s knowledge prior to and including the
time of Plaintiff’s arrest. However, if Defendants can show that Officer Metcalf’s decision to

3

Docket No. 113.
2

recommend prosecution of Plaintiff was informed by the Lethality Assessment, this testimony
would be admissible.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion to Rule on Objections (Docket No. 102) is
GRANTED pursuant to the terms of this order.
DATED September 11, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

3