PRETRIAL CONFERENCE TENTATIVE RULING
KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.
I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Relevant evidence is any evidence that has any tendency to make a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. The Court has discretion to "exclude relevant evidence if 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."
MIL Motion Ruling Reason/Explanation
To exclude character
evidence of specific Evidence of acts prior to November 30,
instances of conduct to 2013 is excluded unless Plaintiff opens
impeach Plaintiff's GRANTED IN the door to impeachment by
character and from PART; contradiction. Evidence of the January
P1 introducing irrelevant DENIED IN 18, 2014 vandalism event is excluded.
evidence or asking PART Evidence of the February 1, 2014 arrest
prejudicial questions is permitted for rebuttal of damages
about Plaintiff's only.
character
To exclude Plaintiff's
testimony regarding
whether Defendants
lacked a legal
justification to use Plaintiff did not oppose. Issues of legal
D1 force, and whether GRANTED justification and excessive force are
Defendants' use of factual determinations to be decided by
force constitutes a jury.
excessive force or was
objectively
unreasonable
To exclude complaints,
allegations of
misconduct,
investigations into Plaintiff did not oppose. Introduction of
D2 alleged misconduct, GRANTED complaints and allegations of
and civil lawsuits misconduct may also present hearsay
concerning the City of issue.
Hayward and
Defendants
Plaintiff did not oppose. Defendants'
To bifurcate the trial concern about responding to Plaintiff's
D3 into liability and DENIED witnesses on damages, however, is
damages phases negated by Plaintiff having no witnesses
on damages other than herself.
To exclude witnesses Plaintiff did not oppose. Rule 37
and evidence not permits the exclusion of information at
D4 disclosed to GRANTED trial that was not properly disclosed
Defendants under Rule 26.
To exclude evidence of
police brutality, Plaintiff did not oppose. Evidence has
D5 excessive force, or the GRANTED no relevance, and creates risk of undue
Black Lives Matter prejudice.
movement generally
To exclude evidence of Plaintiff did not oppose. Rule 37
Plaintiffs' loss of permits the exclusion of information at
D6 income or loss of GRANTED trial that was not properly disclosed
economic opportunity under Rule 26.
Plaintiff did not oppose. Rule 37(e) is
inapplicable, and Defendants fail to
Seeking terminating show why terminating sanctions are
D7 sanctions for failure to DENIED necessary to cure any prejudice to them.
produce evidence Further, Defendants never sought to
compel production.
II. DAMAGES
Plaintiff shall be prepared to explain, at the pretrial conference, why the following damages may be awarded in this case, what evidence Plaintiff has that such damages resulted from the events at issue in this suit, and what evidence Plaintiff has in support of the amounts sought.1
1. Direct doctor expenses (unknown amount)
2. Planet Fitness Year Membership ($480)
3. Medications (unknown amount)
4. December 12, 2013 ambulance expenses ($1,044.16)
5. January 2, 2014 hospital expenses2 ($6,170)
6. September 8, 2014 hospital expenses ($1,883)
7. November 10, 2014 hospital expenses ($1,217)
8. November 10, 2014 Sutter Health expenses ($2,483)
9. August 2015 transportation expenses ($6,000)
10. December 10, 2013 to January 17, 2014 expenses3 ($1,188)
11. Grand Chiropractic services ($19,930)
12. Therapeutic bed ($2,499)
13. Relocation costs ($1,200)
14. Loss of income ($40,000)
III. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
First, the Court has reviewed the parties' joint exhibit list. (Dkt. No. 127.) The parties shall be prepared to explain the relevance of the following exhibits, and why these exhibits should not be excluded:
1. Exhibit 1: December 16, 2014 complaint filed in the instant case
2. Exhibit 2: December 16, 2014 civil cover sheet
3. Exhibit 3: May 20, 2014 Second Chance Anger Management Classes log
4. Exhibit 16: January 2, 2014 hospital records
5. Exhibit 18: January 18, 2014 police summary report4
6. Exhibit 25: August 2015 motion to withdraw
7. Exhibit 26: E-mail correspondence related to August 2015 motion to withdraw
8. Exhibit 27: December 8, 2015 declaration listing attorneys Plaintiff contacted to pursue settlement discussions
Second, the Court's July 28, 2016 case management and pretrial order for jury trial required that the parties "[d]esignate excerpts from discovery that the parties intend to present at trial, other than solely for impeachment or rebuttal, from depositions specifying the witness page and line references, from interrogatory answers, or from responses to requests for admission." (Dkt. No. 99 at 4.) The parties were reminded of this requirement in the Court's January 9, 2017 order to show cause and January 10, 2017 order regarding the joint pre-trial statement. (Dkt. No. 117 at 1, Dkt. No. 119 at 2.) Defendants have apparently designated 148 pages of testimony from Plaintiff's June 2, 2015 deposition, while Plaintiff has not made any designations. (See Dkt. No. 120 at 9.) Defendants shall be prepared to explain why it is necessary to designate 148 pages of Plaintiff's deposition testimony. Plaintiff shall be prepared to explain if she intends to designate any discovery response (for purposes other than impeachment and rebuttal) and if so, why such designations should not be excluded for failure to comply with the Court's orders.
Finally, Defendants state they will present expert testimony from Dr. Stephen Raffle regarding "symptoms that can be attributed and that generally apply to a person diagnosed as bipolar and who is in a manic or depressed state." (Dkt. No. 132 at 5.) Defendants shall be prepared to explain how Dr. Raffle's testimony is relevant to this case, including what evidence exists to show that Plaintiff was in a manic or depressed state on November 30, 2013.
IV. JURY INSTRUCTIONS
The parties submitted joint jury instructions, but did not provide any instructions regarding damages. The Court will provide complete jury instructions at the pre-trial conference.
V. JURY VERDICT FORM
The parties provided a joint jury verdict form, comprised of seven special verdict forms. (Dkt. No. 124.) The special verdict forms concerning the substantive causes of action refer to questions on the special verdict form "Compensatory Damages" that do not exist. (See Dkt. No. 124 at 4 (referring to Questions 2(a)-(b)), 6 (same), 8 (referring to Questions 1(a)-(h)), 10 (same), 12 (same), 13 (listing Questions 1(a) and 2 only).) The proposed verdict forms also contain grammatical errors and inconsistent use of italics and underlining. The parties are to resubmit their joint jury verdict form, correcting the above errors, prior to the pre-trial conference.
VI. JURY QUESTIONNAIRE
The parties shall be prepared to explain the relevance and propriety of the following questions on the joint proposed jury questionnaire:
20(a). People who meet with misfortune have usually brought it upon themselves.
20(b). There are too many frivolous lawsuits.
20(c). Jury awards in lawsuits are generally too low/about right/too high/no opinion.
21. In terms of your political outlook, do you usually think of yourself as very conservative/somewhat conservative/middle of the road/very liberal/somewhat liberal/not political.
26. Have you ever:
a. Been a victim of a crime?5
b. Witnessed a violent act or crime being committed?
c. Been involved in a criminal lawsuit as a defendant or victim
d. Ridden in a Police Patrol Vehicle?
e. Witnessed an incident where the police arrested someone?
f. Known anyone personally who has committed a crime or been arrested?
27. What do you feel is the primary cause of crime in our community?
28. Have you ever been a member of, or otherwise associated with, any of the following organizations: Parent Teachers Association (PTA), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and community block associations or block watch associations such as Neighborhood Watch.
29. Opinions regarding the following:
a. The police are overly constrained in their enforcement of the law.
b. Criminals should be reformed, not punished.
c. Police officers must perform perfectly while on duty.
d. The courts are too lenient in the way they treat criminal defendants.
e. Crime is one of the most important problems in society today.
30. Have you or anyone you know ever been accused of a mistake at work?
VII. OTHER MATTERS
The Court requires that Plaintiff Terri Adams personally attend the January 24, 2017 pre-trial conference, in addition to Plaintiff's counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
