Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 1 of 50
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,REFSET−LB
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:11−cv−02868−JST

M.H. v. County of Alameda et al Assigned to: Judge Jon S. Tigar Referred to: Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler (Settlement) Demand: $20,000 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/10/2011 Date Terminated: 02/27/2015 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

M.H. a minor, individually through her Guardian Ad Litem, Michelle Henshaw, and as successor−in−interest for Decedent Martin Harrison

represented by John L. Burris The Law Offices of John L. Burris Airport Corporate Centre 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, CA 94621 510−839−5200 Fax: 510−839−3882 Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Nisenbaum Law Offices of John L. Burris 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, CA 94621 (510) 839−5200 Fax: (510) 839−3882 Email: bnisenbaum@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joseph Harrison

represented by Julia Sherwin Haddad & Sherwin LLP 505 17th Street Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 452−5500 Fax: 510−452−5100 Email: michael.julia@haddadsherwin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Haddad Haddad & Sherwin LLP 505 17th Street Oakland, CA 94612 510−452−5500 Fax: 510−452−5510 Email: michael.julia@haddadsherwin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Genevieve K. Guertin Haddad & Sherwin LLP 505 17th Street Oakland, CA 94612 510−452−5500 Fax: 510−452−5510 Email: genevieve.guertin@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina N. Altomare

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 2 of 50

Haddad and Sherwin 505 Seventeenth Street Oakland, CA 94612 510−452−5500 Fax: 510−452−5510 Email: gina.altomare@sbcglobal.net TERMINATED: 02/11/2014

Richard Henry Friedman Friedman Rubin 1126 Highland Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 (360) 782−4300 Fax: 360−782−4358 Email: rfriedman@friedmanrubin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Kennedy Helm , IV 523 41st Street Oakland, CA 94609 415−269−4739 Email: tkhelm@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tiffany Harrison Individually and as Co−Successor in Interest of Decedent Martin Harrison

represented by Julia Sherwin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Haddad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Genevieve K. Guertin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina N. Altomare (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/11/2014

Richard Henry Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Kennedy Helm , IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Krystle Harrison individually and as Co−Successor in Interest of Decedent Martin Harrison

represented by Julia Sherwin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Haddad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Genevieve K. Guertin (See above for address)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 3 of 50

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina N. Altomare (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/11/2014

Richard Henry Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Kennedy Helm , IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Martin Harrison, Jr. Individually and as Co−Successor in Interest of Decedent Martin Harrison

represented by Julia Sherwin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Haddad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Genevieve K. Guertin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina N. Altomare (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/11/2014

Richard Henry Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Kennedy Helm , IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michelle Henshaw Appointed Guardian Ad Litem for Minor Plaintiff M.H.

represented by John L. Burris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Nisenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
County of Alameda a municipal corporation

represented by J. Randall Andrada Andrada & Associates Professional Corporation 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2601 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 287−4160 Fax: (510) 287−4161 Email: randrada@andradalaw.com

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 4 of 50

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William W Drury Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA One North Central Avenue, Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−256−3012 Fax: 602−307−5853 Email: wdrury@rcdmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aileen Pang Andrada & Associates Professional Corporation 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 225 Oakland, CA 94612 510−287−4160 Fax: 510−287−4161 Email: apang@andradalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Koss Andrada & Associates Professional Corporation 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 225 Oakland, CA 94612 510−287−4160 Fax: 510−287−4161 Email: ckoss@andradalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Stephen Hunter Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA One North Central Ave., Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−256−3015 Fax: 602−307−5853 Email: jhunter@rcdmlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Lu Ly Andrada & Associates Professional Corporation 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 225 Oakland, CA 94612 510−287−4160 Fax: 510−287−4161 Email: vly@andradalaw.com TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Gregory J. Ahern in his capacity as Sheriff for the County of Alameda TERMINATED: 11/07/2013

represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aileen Pang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 5 of 50

Defendant M. Alhf individually and in his official capacity as a deputy sheriff for the County of Alameda TERMINATED: 02/27/2015
Defendant Alejandro Valverde individually, jointly, severally and in his official capacity as an Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy TERMINATED: 02/27/2015
Defendant Joshua Swetnam individually, jointly, severally and in his official capacity as an Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy TERMINATED: 02/27/2015

Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Valerie Lu Ly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Pang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Valerie Lu Ly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Pang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Valerie Lu Ly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Pang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Valerie Lu Ly

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 6 of 50

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Roberto Martinez individually, jointly, severally and in his official capacity as an Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy TERMINATED: 02/27/2015

represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Pang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Lu Ly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Zachary Litvinchuk individually, jointly, severally and in his official capacity as an Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy TERMINATED: 02/27/2015

represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Pang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Lu Ly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ryan Madigan individually, jointly, severally and in his official capacity as an Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy TERMINATED: 02/27/2015

represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Pang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Lu Ly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 7 of 50

Michael Bareno individually, jointly, severally and in his official capacity as an Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy TERMINATED: 02/27/2015

represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Pang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Lu Ly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Fernando Rojas−Castaneda individually, jointly, severally and in his official capacity as an Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy TERMINATED: 02/27/2015

represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Pang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Lu Ly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Shawn Sobrero individually, jointly, severally and in his official capacity as an Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy TERMINATED: 02/27/2015

represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Pang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Lu Ly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Solomon Unubun individually, jointly, severally and in his official capacity as an Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy TERMINATED: 02/27/2015

represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Pang

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 8 of 50

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Lu Ly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Megan Hast A.S.W. TERMINATED: 02/27/2015

represented by J. Randall Andrada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Koss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Lu Ly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Corizon Health Inc a Delaware corporation

represented by Matthew M. Grigg Law Offices of Matthew M. Grigg 1981 N Broadway, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925−906−0100 Email: mmg@hudginslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol B. Ho Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins 711 Van Ness Ave 450 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)979−0100 Fax: 4159790747 Email: cbh@hudginslaw.com TERMINATED: 12/07/2017

Nancy Eaton Hudgins Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins 1981 N Broadway Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925−906−0100 Email: neh@hudginslaw.com TERMINATED: 12/07/2017

Pamela Chung Law Offices of Matthew M. Grigg 1981 N. Broadway Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925−906−0100 Email: pc@hudginslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 9 of 50

Defendant Harold Orr M.D. TERMINATED: 02/27/2015
Defendant Zelda Sancho L.V.N. TERMINATED: 02/27/2015
Intervenor Kristy Kite

represented by Matthew M. Grigg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol B. Ho (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2017
Nancy Eaton Hudgins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2017
represented by Kathleen Jane Williams Williams & Associates 1250 Sutterville Road, Suite 290 Sacramento, CA 95822 916−456−1122 Fax: 916−737−1126 Email: kwilliams@williamslegal.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha M. Stringer Williams & Associates 1250 Sutterville Road, Suite 290 Sacramento, CA 95822 916−456−1122 Fax: 916−737−1126 Email: mstringer@williamslegal.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Grigg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Javier Torres Stinson Leonard Street LLP 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004−4584 602−279−1600 Fax: 602−240−6925 Email: javier.torres@stinson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/10/2011
06/10/2011 06/10/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Damages & Jury Trial Demanded − [No Summons Issued] against Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf & County of Alameda, [Filing Fee: $350.00, Receipt Number 44611007138] Filed by M.H.. (Attachments: #(1) Civil Cover Sheet)(tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2011) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Joint Case Management Statement due 9/13/2011 & InitialCase Management Conference set for 9/20/2011 at 10:00 AM.. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2011) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/14/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 10 of 50

06/14/2011 06/15/2011 06/16/2011
06/17/2011
07/22/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/09/2011 08/09/2011 09/13/2011
09/15/2011
09/16/2011 09/20/2011
09/20/2011 10/07/2011

3 Declination to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge & Request for Reassignment to a United States District Court Judge filed by Plaintiff M.H.. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2011) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
4 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2011) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
5 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Hon. Claudia Wilken for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 6/16/11. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2011) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
6 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASE: Case Management Statement due by 9/13/2011. Case Management Conference set for 9/20/2011 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/17/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2011) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
7 Summons Issued as to Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, County of Alameda. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2011) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by M.H.. County of Alameda served on 7/22/2011, answer due 8/12/2011. (Burris, John) (Filed on 8/3/2011) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by M.H.. Gregory J. Ahern served on 7/22/2011, answer due 8/12/2011. (Burris, John) (Filed on 8/3/2011) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by M.H.. M. Alhf served on 7/22/2011, answer due 8/12/2011. (Burris, John) (Filed on 8/3/2011) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
11 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, County of Alameda. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 8/9/2011) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
12 NOTICE by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, County of Alameda of Appearance of J. Randall Andrada as Co−Counsel for Defendants (Andrada, J.) (Filed on 8/9/2011) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
13 STIPULATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, FRCivP 15(a) AND TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND (PROPOSED) ORDER by M.H., Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, County of Alameda. (Nisenbaum, Benjamin) (Filed on 9/13/2011) Modified on 9/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2011)
14 ORDER Granting 13 Stipulation TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, FRCivP 15(a) AND TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 11/15/2011. Case Management Conference set for 11/22/2011 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/15/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2011) (Entered: 09/15/2011)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Aileen Pang (Pang, Aileen) (Filed on 9/16/2011) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND against Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, County of Alameda, Alejandro Valverde, Joshua Swetnam, Roberto Martinez, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Michael Bareno, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Solomon Unubun. Filed byM.H., Joseph Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Nisenbaum, Benjamin) (Filed on 9/20/2011) Modified on 9/21/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/20/2011)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Gina N Altomare , Michael J Haddad and Julia Sherwin (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 9/20/2011) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
18 ANSWER to Amended Complaint; Jury Demand byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, County of Alameda, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Pang, Aileen) (Filed on 10/7/2011) Modified on 10/11/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 11 of 50

11/02/2011 11/03/2011 11/11/2011 11/15/2011 11/18/2011 11/22/2011
12/01/2011 12/01/2011 01/10/2012
03/08/2012 03/09/2012 03/20/2012 03/22/2012 03/29/2012 04/05/2012

19 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3−5 d) (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 11/2/2011) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
ADR Clerk Setting an ADR Phone Conference on 11/17/11 at 10:30 a.m. Pacific time. The court will provide instructions for connecting to the call in a separate notice to the parties. (sgd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2011) (Entered: 11/03/2011)
20 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (JOINT) filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 11/11/2011) (Entered: 11/11/2011)
21 ANSWER to Amended Complaint; Jury Demand byMichael Bareno. (Pang, Aileen) (Filed on 11/15/2011) Modified on 11/16/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2011)
ADR Remark: ADR Phone Conference held by GDB on 11/17/11. (sgd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2011) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
22 Minute Entry and Case Management Order: Initial Case Management Conference held on 11/22/2011 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/22/2011). CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge for Settlement Conference. Case Management Statement due by 10/18/2012. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/25/2012 02:00 PM. Motion Hearing set for 10/25/2012 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/23/2013 02:00 PM. Jury Selection set for 2/4/2013 08:30 AM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Jury Trial (10 day)set for 2/4/2013 08:30 AM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (Court Reporter Sarah Goeckler.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/22/2011) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
23 NOTICE by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. of Unavailability of Counsel (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 12/1/2011) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
24 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Settlement Conference set for 3/2/2012 10:00 AM. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge MARIA−ELENA JAMES on 12/1/11. (bjtS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
25 THIS IS A TEXT ONLY DOCKET ENTRY, THERE IS NO DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NOTICE. CLERK'S NOTICE: Settlement Conference set for 3/2/2012 has been Rescheduled to 4/3/2012 at 10:00 AM before Chief Magistrate Judge MARIA−ELENA JAMES. (bjtS, COURT STAFF) Filed on 1/10/2012) (Entered: 01/10/2012) (Entered: 01/10/2012)
26 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr., County of Alameda, et al. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 3/8/2012) Modified on 3/9/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/08/2012)
27 Order granting 26 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
28 Proposed Order [BY STIPULATION, TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE] by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 3/20/2012) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
29 ORDER Granting 28 Stipulation TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/22/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2012) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
30 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Settlement Conference set for 7/10/2012 10:00 AM.. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 3/29/2012. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2012) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 7/10/2012 10:00 AM before Chief Magistrate Judge James. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2012) (Entered: 04/05/2012)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 12 of 50

07/06/2012 07/17/2012
07/18/2012 08/01/2012 08/30/2012 09/04/2012 09/10/2012 09/12/2012
09/12/2012
09/13/2012

31 CLERKS NOTICE CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Settlement Conference set for 8/24/2012 10:00 AM., in chambers. (rmm2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2012) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde, Joseph Harrison, et al. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 7/17/2012) Modified on 7/18/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/2012)
33 Order denying 32 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. The requested dates are not available on Judge James's calendar. Any future such requests must be submitted to Judge James. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
34 CLERKS NOTICE CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference set for 11/20/2012 10:00 AM., IN CHAMBERS. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2012) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
35 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 8/30/2012) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
36 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 35 Stipulation TO AMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2012) Modified on 9/5/2012 (kc, ). (Entered: 09/04/2012)
37 NOTICE by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 9/10/2012) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
38 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 10/18/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 9/26/2012. Replies due by 10/3/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to File Second Amended Complaint)(Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 9/12/2012) Modified on 9/13/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2012)
39 Declaration of Gina Altomare in Support of 38 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B. Deposition of Megan Hast, # 3 Exhibit C. Deposition of Maria Magat)(Related document(s) 38 ) (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 9/12/2012) Modified on 9/13/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that counsel must re−notice not re−file the 38 motion to amend/correct complaint to a Thursday that the Court is available. Hearing date of Thursday, October 18, 2012 is vacated.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

09/13/2012 09/26/2012

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2012) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
40 Renotice motion hearing re 38 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 10/25/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (Related document(s) 38 ) (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 9/13/2012) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
41 RESPONSE (re 38 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint ) filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Valerie Ly in Support of Opposition, # 2 Exhibit A−C to Declaration of Valerie Ly in Support of Opposition)(Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 9/26/2012) (Entered: 09/26/2012)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 13 of 50

10/03/2012 10/22/2012

42 REPLY (re 38 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint ) filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Gina Altomare in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to File Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit A to the Supplemental Declaration of Gina Altomare in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to File Second Amended Complaint)(Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 10/3/2012) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that the Court, on its own motion, shall take the 38 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint under submission on the papers. The hearing previously scheduled for Thursday, October 25, 2012, is vacated.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

11/14/2012 11/14/2012 11/14/2012 11/16/2012 11/19/2012 11/28/2012 12/04/2012
12/05/2012
12/18/2012
12/20/2012
12/20/2012

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2012) (Entered: 10/22/2012)
43 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr., M.H., County of Alameda, et al. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 11/14/2012) Modified on 11/15/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2012)
44 ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James granting 43 Stipulation to Continue Settlement Conference. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2012) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
Set/Reset Hearing re 44 Order on Stipulation Settlement Conference set for 2/27/2013 10:00 AM. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2012) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
45 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 38 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2012) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
46 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second) against All Defendants. Filed byKrystle Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr., Tiffany Harrison, Joseph Harrison. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 11/19/2012) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
47 Summons Issued as to Corizon Health Inc, Megan Hast, Harold Orr, Zelda Sancho. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2012) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
48 ANSWER to Amended Complaint ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Andrada, J.) (Filed on 12/4/2012) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
49 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. ON DEFENDANTS HAST, CORIZON, ORR, AND SANCHO (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service Corizon Health, Inc., # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service Harold Orr, M.D., # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service Zelda Sancho, L.V.N.)(Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 12/5/2012) (Entered: 12/05/2012)
50 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. Motion Hearing set for 2/14/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 1/2/2013. Replies due by 1/9/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration OF MATTHEW M. GRIGG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 12/18/2012) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
51 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continuing Hearing Date and Setting Briefing Schedule re 50 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr., M.H., Harold Orr, Corizon Health Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael J. Haddad in support)(Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 12/20/2012) Modified on 12/21/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2012)
52 NOTICE by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. of Unavailability of Counsel (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 12/20/2012) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 14 of 50

12/27/2012 12/28/2012 01/03/2013 01/23/2013
01/23/2013
01/24/2013 01/24/2013 01/24/2013 01/30/2013 01/31/2013 01/31/2013 02/12/2013 02/21/2013
02/26/2013

53 Order granting 51 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
Reset Deadlines/Hearing as to 50 MOTION to Dismiss : Responses due by 1/31/2013. Replies due by 2/14/2013. Motion Hearing set for 3/7/2013 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. See Docket No. 53. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2012) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
54 CLERKS NOTICE CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference set for 3/11/2013 02:00 PM. in Chambers. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2013) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
55 NOTICE by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL (Andrada, J.) (Filed on 1/23/2013) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
56 Transcript of Proceedings held on November 22, 2011, before Judge Wilken. Court Reporter/Transcriber Sarah Goekler, Telephone number (530)941−2621; sgoekler.csr@gmail.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/23/2013. (slg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2013) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
57 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Requesting Setting of Case Management Conference filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr., M.H., County of Alameda, et al . (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 1/24/2013) Modified on 1/25/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/2013)
58 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 57 Stipulation Requesting Setting of Case Management Conference. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2013) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 2/28/2013. Case Management Conference set for 3/7/2013 02:00 PM. See 58 Order. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2013) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
59 NOTICE of Appearance by Genevieve Kathryn Guertin (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 1/30/2013) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
60 RESPONSE (re 50 MOTION to Dismiss ) filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 1/31/2013) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
61 Plaintiff M.H.'s Joinder in Plaintiff's Joseph Harrison's, et al. Opposition to Defendant Dr. Orr and Corizon Health Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss by M.H.. (Nisenbaum, Benjamin) (Filed on 1/31/2013) Modified on 2/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/31/2013)
62 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Jon S. Tigar for all further proceedings. Judge Hon. Claudia Wilken no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Judge Executive Committee on 2/11/2013. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2013) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
63 MOTION to Dismiss; Memorandum of Points & Authorities filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr, Zelda Sancho. Motion Hearing set for 4/11/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 3/7/2013. Replies due by 3/14/2013. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/21/2013) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
64 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 2/26/2013) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 15 of 50

02/27/2013 02/28/2013 02/28/2013 03/07/2013 03/14/2013 03/14/2013 03/18/2013
03/19/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/21/2013
04/11/2013 04/18/2013 04/25/2013 05/03/2013

65 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 2/27/2013) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
66 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James granting 64 Stipulation to continue settlement conference. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2013) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
Set/Reset Hearing re 66 Order on Stipulation Settlement Conference set for 5/20/2013 02:00 PM, in chambers. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2013) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
67 RESPONSE (re 63 MOTION to Dismiss ) filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 3/7/2013) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
68 REPLY (re 63 MOTION to Dismiss ) filed byCorizon Health Inc, Harold Orr, Zelda Sancho. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 3/14/2013) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
69 Request for Judicial Notice re 68 Reply to Opposition/Response filed byCorizon Health Inc, Harold Orr, Zelda Sancho. (Related document(s) 68 ) (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 3/14/2013) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
70 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 4/24/2013. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/1/2013 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order, # 2 Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2013) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
71 NOTICE by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. of Unavailability of Plaintiffs' Counsel (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 3/19/2013) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
72 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 3/20/2013) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
73 Order by Hon. Jon S. Tigar granting re 72 Stipulation to reset case management conference to May 15, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.. (jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 3/20/2013) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 5/8/2013. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/15/2013 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2013) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
74 OBJECTIONS to re 68 Reply to Opposition/Response Containing New Evidence and Argument; Surreply in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Harold Orr, M.D., Corizon Health, Inc., and Zelda Sancho, L.V.N. by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 3/21/2013) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
75 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 4/11/2013 before Judge Jon S. Tigar (Date Filed: 4/11/2013) re 63 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Zelda Sancho, Harold Orr, Corizon Health Inc. (Court Reporter: Connie Kuhl.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/11/2013) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
76 ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Jon S. Tigar, denying re 50 Motion to Dismiss; denying re 63 Motion to Dismiss. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
77 STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITIONS OF CORIZON DEFENDANTS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AND PERSONS MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 4/25/2013) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
78 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 5/3/2013) (Entered: 05/03/2013)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 16 of 50

05/08/2013 05/08/2013 05/08/2013 05/15/2013

79 ORDER Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James granting re 78 Stipulation to continue Settlement Conference. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2013) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
Set/Reset Hearing re 79 Order on Stipulation Settlement Conference set for 6/19/2013 10:00 AM. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2013) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
80 UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 5/8/2013) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
81 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 83 ***

05/15/2013
05/15/2013 06/19/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/27/2013 07/01/2013
08/16/2013 08/27/2013 08/27/2013

Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 5/15/2013 before Judge Jon S. Tigar (Date Filed: 5/15/2013). (Court Reporter: Not reported.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/15/2013) Modified on 5/15/2013 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2013)
82 SCHEDULING ORDER. Fact Discovery due by 9/6/2013. Expert Disclosures due by 10/11/2013. Dispositive Motions due by 11/29/2013. Pretrial Conference Statement due by 2/18/2014. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/28/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Jury Trial set for 3/10/2014 − 3/24/2014 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on May 15, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2013) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
83 Corrected Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 5/15/2013 before Judge Jon S. Tigar (Date Filed: 5/15/2013). Corrected case caption. (Court Reporter: Not reported.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/15/2013) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
84 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held, case did not settle. (Date Filed: 6/19/2013). (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/19/2013) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
85 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to Continue Case Management Conference filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 6/26/2013) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
86 This entry removed by order of the court. See docket #87. Modified on 7/1/2013 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2013)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 8/14/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/28/2013 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2013) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
87 CORRECTED ORDER re 85 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER. The Stipulated Request to Continue Case Management Conference ECF. 85, is GRANTED. The Conference currently scheduled for August 14, 2013 is continued to August 28, 2013. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Case Management Statement by August 16, 2013. The parties' attention is directed to the difference between the conference and statement filing dates in their stipulation and Court's Order. Case Management Statement due by 8/16/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/28/2013 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 1, 2013. This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2013) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
88 UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, UPDATE filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 8/16/2013) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
89 Minute Entry: Telephonic Case Management Conference held on 8/27/2013 before Jon S. Tigar (Date Filed: 8/27/2013). (Court Reporter: Not reported.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/27/2013) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
90 First Discovery Letter Brief RE: FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINATION filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin,

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 17 of 50

08/27/2013 08/27/2013 08/27/2013
08/27/2013 08/27/2013 08/28/2013 08/28/2013 08/29/2013
08/29/2013 08/30/2013 08/30/2013 09/04/2013 09/04/2013 09/05/2013 09/17/2013

Julia) (Filed on 8/27/2013) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
91 EXHIBITS to re 90 First Discovery Letter Brief RE: FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINATION, (Exhibit A, Medical Chart Note) filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 8/27/2013) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
92 EXHIBITS to re 90 First Discovery Letter Brief RE: FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINATION, (Exhibit B, 8/24/12 Notice of Inspection) filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 8/27/2013) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
93 EXHIBITS to re 90 First Discovery Letter Brief RE: FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINATION, (Exhibit C, 9/24/12 Alameda County's Response to Notice of Inspection) filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 8/27/2013) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
94 EXHIBITS to re 90 First Discovery Letter Brief RE: FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINATION, (Exhibit D, 8/16/13 Second Notice of Inspection) filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 8/27/2013) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
95 EXHIBITS to re 90 First Discovery Letter Brief RE: FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINATION, (Exhibit E, Pertinent Emails) filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 8/27/2013) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
96 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 8/28/2013 before Judge Jon S. Tigar (Date Filed: 8/28/2013). (Court Reporter: Not reported.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/28/2013) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 8/30/2013 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2013) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
97 Letter Brief re 92 Exhibits, re 91 Exhibits, re 95 Exhibits, re 94 Exhibits, re 93 Exhibits, re 90 First Discovery Letter Brief RE: FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINATION filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Related document(s) 92 , 91 , 95 , 94 , 93 , 90 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 8/29/2013) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
98 Letter Brief filed byCorizon Health Inc, Harold Orr, Zelda Sancho. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 8/29/2013) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
99 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 8/30/2013 before Judge Jon S. Tigar (Date Filed: 8/30/2013). (Court Reporter: Not reported.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/30/2013) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
100 NOTICE filed by M.H.; MINOR PLAINTIFF M.H.S NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT (Nisenbaum, Benjamin) (Filed on 8/30/2013) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
101 ORDER RE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND DISPUTED DEPOSITIONS. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 4, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2013) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Fact Discovery due by 10/11/2013. Expert Disclosure due by 11/15/2013. Expert Rebuttal due by 12/13/2013. Expert Discovery due by 1/20/2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2013) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
102 Order by Hon. Jon S. Tigar terminating 90 Discovery Letter Brief.(jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 9/5/2013) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
103 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit A of the Petition Appointing Guardian Ad Litem and Approving Minor's Compromise filed by M.H.. (Nisenbaum, Benjamin) (Filed on 9/17/2013) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 18 of 50

09/17/2013 09/18/2013 09/27/2013 09/27/2013 10/03/2013 10/03/2013 10/04/2013
10/08/2013 10/08/2013 10/08/2013 10/09/2013 10/09/2013
10/10/2013 10/16/2013 11/07/2013 11/13/2013

104 MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem and Approving Minor's Compromise and (Proposed) Order filed by M.H.. (Nisenbaum, Benjamin) (Filed on 9/17/2013) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
105 Amended MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem and Approving Minor's Compromise and (Proposed) Order filed by M.H.. (Nisenbaum, Benjamin) (Filed on 9/18/2013) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
106 First Discovery Letter Brief with Exhibits A through E, re: Depositions Currently Noticed for October 2 and 7−9, 2013 filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 9/27/2013) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
107 First Discovery Letter Brief filed by County of Alameda, Harold Orr, Zelda Sancho. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 9/27/2013) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
108 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR FURTHER DEPOSITION DISCOVERY by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting in part and denying in part 106 Discovery Letter Brief. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2013) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
Order by Hon. Jon S. Tigar terminating 107 Discovery Letter Brief.(jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 10/3/2013) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
109 ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM, APPROVING MINOR'S COMPROMISE, AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar, denying in part 103 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 105 Motion to Appoint ad litem ad Litem. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2013) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
110 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITIONS OF FORMER CORIZON EMPLOYEES filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 10/8/2013) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
111 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 109 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Motion to Appoint Guardian/Attorney ad Litem,, Unredacted Version of Document Sought to be Sealed by M.H.. (Nisenbaum, Benjamin) (Filed on 10/8/2013) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
112 EXHIBIT A OF AMENDED PETITION APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND APPROVING MINORS COMPROMISE − UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED filed by M.H.. (Nisenbaum, Benjamin) (Filed on 10/8/2013) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
113 Order by Hon. Jon S. Tigar granting 110 Stipulation re: deposition scheduling. (jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 10/9/2013) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
114 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF CORIZON F.R.CIV.P. 30(B)(6) WITNESS AND DISCOVERY CONCERNING CORIZON FINANCIAL CONDITION filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 10/9/2013) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
115 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel and [PROPOSED] Order filed by Kathleen Jane Williams (Williams, Kathleen) (Filed on 10/10/2013) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
116 Order by Hon. Jon S. Tigar granting 114 Stipulation re: 30(b)(6) Deposition. This Order does not affect any other case deadlines. (jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 10/16/2013) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
117 STIPULATION Dismissing Plaintiffs' Claims Against Sheriff Ahern, Individually filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 11/7/2013) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
118 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS FOR COUNTY

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 19 of 50

11/14/2013

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR ALL DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 11/13/2013) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
119 Order by Hon. Jon S. Tigar granting 118 Stipulation. The County Defendants may file a single motion for summary judgment not to exceed fifty pages. Plaintiffs' opposition may not exceed fifty pages. The briefing schedule is as follows:

Motion filing deadline: Nov. 29, 2013 Opposition deadline: Dec. 20, 2013 Reply deadline: Jan. 10, 2014 Motion Hearing: Jan. 23, 2014

11/15/2013 11/20/2013 11/26/2013
11/26/2013 11/26/2013 11/26/2013 11/27/2013

(jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 11/14/2013) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion due by 11/29/2013. Responses due by 12/20/2013. Replies due by 1/10/2014. Motion Hearing set for 1/23/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2013) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
120 NOTICE by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. of Unavailability of Plaintiffs' Counsel (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 11/20/2013) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
121 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION for Summary Judgment OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 1/23/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 12/10/2013. Replies due by 12/17/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Deputy Matthew Ahlf, # 2 Declaration of Megan Hast, # 3 Declaration of James Rael, M.D., # 4 Exhibit A−B to Declaration of James Rael, M.D.)(Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/26/2013) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
122 Declaration of Vincent Di Maio, M.D. in Support of 121 MOTION for Summary Judgment OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Vincent Di Maio, M.D., # 2 Exhibit B to Declaration of Vincent Di Maio, M.D.)(Related document(s) 121 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/26/2013) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
123 Declaration of Charles Wetli in Support of 121 MOTION for Summary Judgment OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Charles Wetli, M.D.)(Related document(s) 121 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/26/2013) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
124 EXHIBITS to re 123 Declaration in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Claims; EXHIBIT B TO DECLARATION OF CHARLES WETLI, M.D. filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Related document(s) 123 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/26/2013) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
125 Declaration of Valerie Ly in Support of 121 MOTION for Summary Judgment OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Zachary

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 20 of 50

11/27/2013 11/27/2013 11/27/2013 11/27/2013 11/27/2013 11/27/2013 11/27/2013 11/27/2013 11/29/2013
12/02/2013

Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 121 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/27/2013) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
126 EXHIBITS re 125 Declaration in Support, filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 125 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/27/2013) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
127 EXHIBITS re 125 Declaration in Support, filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 125 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/27/2013) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
128 EXHIBITS re 125 Declaration in Support, filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit G, # 2 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 125 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/27/2013) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
129 EXHIBITS re 125 Declaration in Support, filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J, # 2 Exhibit K)(Related document(s) 125 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/27/2013) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
130 EXHIBITS re 125 Declaration in Support, filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit M)(Related document(s) 125 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/27/2013) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
131 EXHIBITS re 125 Declaration in Support, filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, # 2 Exhibit P)(Related document(s) 125 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/27/2013) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
132 [Proposed] Order Granting re 121 MOTION for Summary Judgment OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 11/27/2013) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
133 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Zelda Sancho. Motion Hearing set for 1/23/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 12/20/2013. Replies due by 1/10/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sancho, # 2 Declaration of Schoenfeld, # 3 Declaration of Wild, # 4 Declaration of Stringer, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Judgment)(Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 11/27/2013) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
134 MOTION for Summary Judgment or Alternatively, Partial Summary Judgment filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. Motion Hearing set for 3/10/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 12/13/2013. Replies due by 12/20/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Harold Orr, M.D., # 2 Declaration of Sylvia Schwartz, # 3 Declaration of Lenore Gilbert, # 4 Declaration of Matthew M. Grigg, # 5 Declaration of Criselda Imperio, R.N., # 6 Declaration of Anna Blyakherova, L.V.N., # 7 Declaration of Robert Jones, M.D.)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 11/29/2013) (Entered: 11/29/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to re 134 MOTION for Summary Judgment or Alternatively, Partial Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 1/23/2014 at 2:00 PM in

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 21 of 50

12/06/2013 12/06/2013

Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Motion noticed for incorrect date. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
135 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 12/6/2013) (Entered: 12/06/2013)
136 Order by Hon. Jon S. Tigar granting 135 Stipulation.

Upon stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby continues the expert discovery cutoff from January 20, 2014 to February 10, 2014. This Order does not alter the remaining deadlines in the case, including pretrial and trial deadlines, which remain in effect.

12/12/2013
12/12/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 12/13/2013 12/13/2013 12/18/2013

(jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 12/6/2013) (Entered: 12/06/2013)
137 ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDED PRETRIAL AND TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDERThe Court is in receipt of attorney Michael J. Haddad's e−mail message dated December 11, 2013 and now orders as follows: (1) The parties will meet and confer regarding a suitable amended pretrial and trial scheduling order; (2) Defendants will provide a written draft amended order to Plaintiffs by 5:00 p.m., December 13, 2013; (3) Plaintiffs will either agree to Defendants' proposal, or provide a written counter−proposal by 5:00 p.m., December 16, 2013; and (4) by 5:00 p.m., December 17, 2013, either Defendants will submit a stipulated request for entry of an amended order to the Court, or the parties will submit their competing proposed orders. Either party may also, but is not required to, submit a letter brief in support of its proposed order. Such briefs must be not longer than two, single−spaced pages and must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on December 17. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar)(Filed on 12/12/2013) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
138 First Ex Parte Application to Postpone Deposition of Schoenfeld filed by Zelda Sancho. (Attachments: #(1) Declaration of Stringer)(Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 12/12/2013) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
139 First Discovery Letter Brief In Opposition to Defendant Sancho's "Ex Parte Application" filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 12/12/2013) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
140 Declaration of Michael J. Haddad in Support of 139 First Discovery Letter Brief In Opposition to Defendant Sancho's "Ex Parte Application" filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Emails Between Counsel, # 2 Exhibit B, Notice of Deposition)(Related document(s) 139 ) (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 12/12/2013) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
141 ORDER by Judge Tigar striking 138 Ex Parte Application ; striking 139 Discovery Letter Brief as improperly filed. The parties are directed to consult the Court's Standing Order For All Civil Cases, available at cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders. (jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 12/13/2013) (Entered: 12/13/2013)
142 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Clarifying Case Schedule filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 12/13/2013) (Entered: 12/13/2013)
143 Order by Hon. Jon S. Tigar granting in part and denying in part 142 Stipulation.

The Court GRANTS the parties' request to confirm the trial date and move the pretrial conference. However, the Court is unable to accommodate the parties' requested date for the pretrial conference. Consequently, the Court amends the case schedule as follows:

Pretrial Conference Statement Due: February 21, 2014 Pretrial Conference: March 3, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 22 of 50

Trial: March 10, 2014, at 8:30 a.m.

12/19/2013 12/19/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013
12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013

(jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 12/18/2013) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Pretrial Conference Statement due by 2/21/2014. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/3/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2013) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
144 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PAGE LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MSJ FILED BY DEFENDANTS CORIZON AND ORR filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 12/19/2013) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
145 Order by Hon. Jon S. Tigar granting 144 Stipulation.(jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
146 RESPONSE (re 133 First MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
147 RESPONSE (re 121 MOTION for Summary Judgment OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS ) filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
148 RESPONSE (re 134 MOTION for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment ) filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
149 Declaration of Julia Sherwin in Support of 147 Opposition/Response to Motion, 148 Opposition/Response to Motion, 146 Opposition/Response to Motion In Support of Plaintiffs' Responses in Opposition to All Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25)(Related document(s) 147 , 148 , 146 ) (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
150 RESPONSE (re 134 MOTION for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment ) WITH CORRECTED CAPTION, PLEASE DISREGARD DOC. 148 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
151 Declaration of Gina Altomare in Support of 146 Opposition/Response to Motion, 147 Opposition/Response to Motion, 150 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 146 , 147 , 150 ) (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
152 Declaration of Michael Baden, M.D. in Support of 146 Opposition/Response to Motion, 147 Opposition/Response to Motion, 150 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 146 , 147 , 150 ) (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
153 Declaration of Julia Sherwin in Support of 147 Opposition/Response to Motion, 146 Opposition/Response to Motion, 150 Opposition/Response to Motion, CORRECTED, Vol. 1 with Exhibits 1−50 (PLEASE DISREGARD DOCKET NO. 149) filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, #

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 23 of 50

12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013
12/20/2013 01/08/2014 01/10/2014
01/10/2014 01/10/2014

23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50)(Related document(s) 147 , 146 , 150 ) (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
154 Declaration of Kathryn Burns, M.D. in Support of 146 Opposition/Response to Motion, 147 Opposition/Response to Motion, 150 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 146 , 147 , 150 ) (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
155 Declaration of M. Patricia Fisher in Support of 146 Opposition/Response to Motion, 147 Opposition/Response to Motion, 150 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 146 , 147 , 150 ) (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
156 Declaration of John J. Ryan in Support of 146 Opposition/Response to Motion, 147 Opposition/Response to Motion, 150 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Related document(s) 146 , 147 , 150 ) (Altomare, Gina) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
157 Declaration of Julia Sherwin in Support of 147 Opposition/Response to Motion, 146 Opposition/Response to Motion, 150 Opposition/Response to Motion, Vol. 2, with Exhibits 51−88 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 51, # 2 Exhibit 52, # 3 Exhibit 53, # 4 Exhibit 54, # 5 Exhibit 55, # 6 Exhibit 56, # 7 Exhibit 57, # 8 Exhibit 58, # 9 Exhibit 59, # 10 Exhibit 60, # 11 Exhibit 61, # 12 Exhibit 62, # 13 Exhibit 63, # 14 Exhibit 64, # 15 Exhibit 65, # 16 Exhibit 66, # 17 Exhibit 67, # 18 Exhibit 68, # 19 Exhibit 69, # 20 Exhibit 70, # 21 Exhibit 71, # 22 Exhibit 72, # 23 Exhibit 73, # 24 Exhibit 74, # 25 Exhibit 75, # 26 Exhibit 76, # 27 Exhibit 77, # 28 Exhibit 78, # 29 Exhibit 79, # 30 Exhibit 80, # 31 Exhibit 81, # 32 Exhibit 82, # 33 Exhibit 83, # 34 Exhibit 84, # 35 Exhibit 85, # 36 Exhibit 86, # 37 Exhibit 87, # 38 Exhibit 88)(Related document(s) 147 , 146 , 150 ) (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
158 Declaration of Genevieve K. Guertin in Support of 146 Opposition/Response to Motion, 157 Declaration in Support,,,, 147 Opposition/Response to Motion, 150 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 64)(Related document(s) 146 , 157 , 147 , 150 ) (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 12/20/2013) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/3/2014 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Correcting docketing error from 12/19/2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2014) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
159 REPLY (re 121 MOTION for Summary Judgment OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS ) to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Claims; and Objection to Evidence filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Valerie Ly, # 2 Exhibit Q−R to Declaration of Valerie Ly, # 3 Exhibit S−T to Declaration of Valerie Ly, # 4 Exhibit U−V to Declaration of Valerie Ly, # 5 Exhibit W−X to Declaration of Valerie Ly, # 6 Exhibit Y−Z to Declaration of Valerie Ly)(Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 1/10/2014) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
160 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Re Extra Pages for Reply Brief filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/10/2014) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
161 REPLY (re 133 First MOTION for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment) filed by Zelda Sancho. (Attachments: # 1 Objections to

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 24 of 50

01/10/2014 01/10/2014 01/14/2014 01/15/2014 01/15/2014 01/16/2014 01/23/2014
01/28/2014 01/28/2014 01/31/2014 02/04/2014

Plaintiffs' Evidence, # 2 Declaration of Stringer, # 3 Request for Judicial Notice)(Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 1/10/2014) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
162 Order by Hon. Jon S. Tigar granting 160 Stipulation for extra pages. (jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 1/10/2014) Modified on 1/13/2014 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/10/2014)
163 REPLY (re 134 MOTION for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment ) filed byCorizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Attachments: # 1 Dr. Orr and Corizon's Objections to Evidence)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/10/2014) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
164 OBJECTIONS to re 161 Reply to Opposition/Response, re 159 Reply to Opposition/Response re 163 Reply to Opposition/Response; Objections to All Defendants' Replies to All Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 1/14/2014) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
165 OBJECTIONS to re 161 Reply to Opposition/Response, Defendant Sancho's Request for Judicial Notice by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 1/15/2014) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
166 Declaration in Support of 165 Objection to Defendant Sancho's Request for Judicial Notice filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B)(Related document(s) 165 ) (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 1/15/2014) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
167 DECLARATION of Genevieve K. Guertin in Opposition to 161 Reply to Opposition/Response; Declaration of Genevieve K. Guertin Regarding Authentication of Evidence filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit Ex.A(1), #(2) Exhibit Ex.A(2), #(3) Exhibit Ex.A(3), #(4) Exhibit Ex. B, #(5) Exhibit Ex. C, #(6) Exhibit Ex. D)(Related document(s) 161 ) (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 1/16/2014) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
168 Minute Entry: Motion Hearings held on 1/23/2014 before Judge Jon S. Tigar (Date Filed: 1/23/2014) re 134 MOTION for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment filed by Harold Orr, Corizon Health Inc, 133 First MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Zelda Sancho, 121 MOTION for Summary Judgment OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS filed by Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Zachary Litvinchuk, Alejandro Valverde, M. Alhf, Megan Hast, County of Alameda, Ryan Madigan, Michael Bareno, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Shawn Sobrero, Gregory J. Ahern. (FTR recording: 2:53−3:50 p.m.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/23/2014) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
169 ** FILED IN ERROR − DISREGARD ** TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde for Court Reporter FTR − Oakland. (Andrada, J.) (Filed on 1/28/2014) Modified on 1/28/2014 (djc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2014)
170 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde for Court Reporter FTR − San Francisco. (Andrada, J.) (Filed on 1/28/2014) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
171 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Amending Case Management Order to Extend Expert Discovery Cutoff filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 1/31/2014) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
172 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 171 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Amending Case Management Order to Extend Expert Discovery Cutoff filed by Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Zachary Litvinchuk,

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 25 of 50

02/11/2014 02/18/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014
02/21/2014
02/21/2014
02/21/2014
02/21/2014

Alejandro Valverde, M. Alhf, Megan Hast, County of Alameda, Ryan Madigan, Michael Bareno, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Shawn Sobrero, Gregory J. Ahern. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 4, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2014) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
173 NOTICE of Appearance by Julia Sherwin AND SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 2/11/2014) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
174 ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/4/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 14, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2014) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
175 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for Daily Trial by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
176 First MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT RON MARTINELLI filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
177 Second MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT ROBERT FONZI filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
178 Third MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT VINCENT J.M. DIMAIO, M.D. filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
179 Fourth MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT CHARLES V. WETLI, M.D. filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
180 Fifth MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT CORIZON'S EXPERT ROBERT D. JONES, M.D. filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
181 Sixth MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF THE CORIZON AND COUNTY DEFENDANTS' EXPERT ARTHUR KLATSKY, M.D. filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
182 Seventh MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, OR COMMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS CONCERNING ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT JACK RYAN WHILE HE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 26 of 50

02/21/2014
02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014
02/21/2014

183 Eighth MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, OR COMMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT MICHAEL BADEN'S DEMOTION AND SUBSEQUENT REINSTATEMENT LITIGATION WHILE HE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE NEW YORK CITY MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
184 Ninth MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, COMMENT, OR ARGUMENT CONCERNING ALLEGED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY DECEDENT MARTIN C. HARRISON AGAINST NON−PARTIES, AND OTHER PRIOR "BAD ACTS" filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
185 Tenth MOTION in Limine FOR LEAVE FOR ATTORNEY−CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE AND PERMISSION TO USE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
186 Joint MOTION in Limine regarding Jury Questionnaire filed by Zelda Sancho. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
187 MOTION in Limine #'s 1−9 filed by Zelda Sancho. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Motions in Limine #'s 1−9)(Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
188 Pretrial Conference Statement by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. JOINT. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1 Plaintiffs' Exhibit List, # 2 Appendix 2 Plaintiffs' Objections to Defs' Exhibits, # 3 Appendix 3 Plaintiffs' Witness List, # 4 Appendix 4 Corizon Defs' Exhibit List, # 5 Appendix 5 Corizon Defs' Objections to Exhibits, # 6 Appendix 6 Corizon Defs' Witness List, # 7 Appendix 7 Def Sancho's Exhibit List, # 8 Appendix 8 Def Sancho's Objections to Exhibits, # 9 Appendix 9 Def Sancho's Witness List)(Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
189 Declaration of T. Kennedy Helm in Support of 179 Fourth MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT CHARLES V. WETLI, M.D., 180 Fifth MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT CORIZON'S EXPERT ROBERT D. JONES, M.D., 178 Third MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT VINCENT J.M. DIMAIO, M.D., 183 Eighth MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, OR COMMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT MICHAEL BADEN'S DEMOTION AND SUBSEQUENT REINSTATEMENT LITIGATION WHILE HE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE NEW YORK CITY M, 182 Seventh MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, OR COMMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS CONCERNING ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT JACK RYAN WHILE HE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, 184 Ninth MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, COMMENT, OR ARGUMENT CONCERNING ALLEGED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY DECEDENT MARTIN C. HARRISON AGAINST NON−PARTIES, AND OTHER PRIOR "BAD ACTS", 185 Tenth MOTION in Limine FOR LEAVE FOR ATTORNEY−CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE AND PERMISSION TO USE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE, 176 First MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT RON MARTINELLI, 177 Second MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT ROBERT FONZI, 181 Sixth MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF THE CORIZON AND COUNTY DEFENDANTS' EXPERT ARTHUR KLATSKY, M.D.

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 27 of 50

02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014

filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B(1), # 3 Exhibit B(2), # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H(1), # 10 Exhibit H(2), # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Exhibit Q, # 20 Exhibit R, # 21 Exhibit S, # 22 Exhibit T, # 23 Exhibit U, # 24 Exhibit V)(Related document(s) 179 , 180 , 178 , 183 , 182 , 184 , 185 , 176 , 177 , 181 ) (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
190 First MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Reference to Code of Silence filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
191 Second MOTION in Limine to Exclude Inflammatory Language Regarding Use of Force filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
192 Third MOTION in Limine to Exclude Autopsy Photographs filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
193 Fourth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Deputy Martinez' Taser Certification filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
194 Fifth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Reference to Deputy Unubun's Performance at Academy, Grievances, and Investigation filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
195 Sixth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Speculation by Sergeant Dudek filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
196 Seventh MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Expert's Prior Cases filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
197 Eighth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Dr. Baden's Prior Cases filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 28 of 50

02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014

Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
198 Ninth MOTION in Limine Excluding Cross−Examination of Dr. Wetli Regarding Dade County Autopsies filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
199 Tenth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Opinion by Dr. Baden Regarding Taser as Cause of Death filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
200 MOTION in Limine No. 11 to Limit Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert John "Jack" Ryan filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
201 MOTION in Limine No. 12 to Exclude Argument by Counsel and Testimony by Expert Kathryn Burns, M.D. Regarding Medical Training to Deputies and Training to CJMH Staff filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
202 MOTION in Limine No, 13 to Limit Testimony Regarding Plaintiffs' Expert Larissa J. Mooney, M.D. filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
203 MOTION in Limine No. 14 to Exclude Questioning County Defendants' Expert James Rael, M.D. Regarding Medical Care filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
204 MOTION in Limine No. 15 to Exclude Questions Regarding Mere Possibilty of Experts filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
205 MOTION in Limine No. 16 to Exclude Opinions of Dr. Schoenfeld Regarding the Cause of Death filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. (Ly,

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 29 of 50

02/21/2014
02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/22/2014 02/24/2014

Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
206 Declaration of Valerie Ly in Support of 205 MOTION in Limine No. 16 to Exclude Opinions of Dr. Schoenfeld Regarding the Cause of Death, 204 MOTION in Limine No. 15 to Exclude Questions Regarding Mere Possibilty of Experts, 194 Fifth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Reference to Deputy Unubun's Performance at Academy, Grievances, and Investigation, 195 Sixth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Speculation by Sergeant Dudek, 198 Ninth MOTION in Limine Excluding Cross−Examination of Dr. Wetli Regarding Dade County Autopsies, 203 MOTION in Limine No. 14 to Exclude Questioning County Defendants' Expert James Rael, M.D. Regarding Medical Care, 202 MOTION in Limine No, 13 to Limit Testimony Regarding Plaintiffs' Expert Larissa J. Mooney, M.D., 200 MOTION in Limine No. 11 to Limit Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert John "Jack" Ryan, 197 Eighth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Dr. Baden's Prior Cases, 190 First MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Reference to Code of Silence, 199 Tenth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Opinion by Dr. Baden Regarding Taser as Cause of Death, 191 Second MOTION in Limine to Exclude Inflammatory Language Regarding Use of Force, 201 MOTION in Limine No. 12 to Exclude Argument by Counsel and Testimony by Expert Kathryn Burns, M.D. Regarding Medical Training to Deputies and Training to CJMH Staff, 192 Third MOTION in Limine to Exclude Autopsy Photographs, 196 Seventh MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Expert's Prior Cases filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B−F, # 3 Exhibit G−L, # 4 Exhibit M, # 5 Exhibit N−R, # 6 Exhibit S−U, # 7 Exhibit V−W, # 8 Exhibit X, # 9 Exhibit Y)(Related document(s) 205 , 204 , 194 , 195 , 198 , 203 , 202 , 200 , 197 , 190 , 199 , 191 , 201 , 192 , 196 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
207 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Exhibit List re 188 Joint Pretrial Statement− filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
208 County Defendants' Exhibit List re 188 Joint Pretrial Statement filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde.. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
209 Witness List re 188 Joint Pretrial Statement filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde . (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
210 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION for Bifurcation of Trial filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 3/1/2014. Replies due by 3/10/2014. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
211 MOTION in Limine; Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 3/7/2014. Replies due by 3/14/2014. (Attachments: # 1 MIL #1, # 2 MIL #2, # 3 MIL #3, # 4 MIL #4, # 5 MIL #5, # 6 MIL #6, # 7 MIL #7, # 8 MIL #8, # 9 MIL #9)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/22/2014) (Entered: 02/22/2014)
212 Declaration of Nancy E. Hudgins in Support of re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions MIL #7 and Exhibit A to MIL #7 filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Related document(s) 211 ) (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/24/2014) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 30 of 50

02/24/2014
02/25/2014 02/25/2014 02/25/2014 02/25/2014 02/25/2014
02/25/2014 02/25/2014 02/25/2014 02/25/2014 02/26/2014
02/26/2014 02/26/2014
02/27/2014 02/27/2014

213 MOTION in Limine #3 (disregard Docket No. 211−3) filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 2/27/2014. Replies due by 3/6/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Hudgins re MIL#3, # 2 Declaration of Grigg re MIL#3, # 3 Exhibit A (1 of 3), # 4 Exhibit A (2 of 3), # 5 Exhibit A (3 of 3), # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/24/2014) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
214 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. . (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
215 Proposed Verdict Form filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. . (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
216 Proposed Voir Dire filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. . (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
217 Proposed Joint Jury Questionnaire filed by Zelda Sancho (JOINT). (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
218 Proposed Voir Dire Questions filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr , Zelda Sancho, County of Alameda, Gregory J. Ahern, Matthew Ahlf, Alejandro Valverde, Joshua Swetnam, Roberto Martinez, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Michael Bareno, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Solomon Unubun, and Megan Hast, A.S.W.. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
219 Proposed Jury Questionnaire filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED JURY QUESTIONNAIRE. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
220 Proposed Jury Instructions & Further Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Instructions filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr , et al.. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
221 TRIAL BRIEF filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
222 Proposed Special Verdict Form filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr , et al.. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
223 Notice of Joinder & Joinder in re 187 MOTION in Limine #'s 1−9, re 212 Declaration in Support, re 213 MOTION in Limine #3 (disregard Docket No. 211−3), re 211 MOTION in Limine; Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/26/2014) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
224 Joinder in re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions #2, #3, #4, and #8 filed by Zelda Sancho. (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 2/26/2014) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
225 Joinder in re 197 Eighth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Dr. Baden's Prior Cases, re 204 MOTION in Limine No. 15 to Exclude Questions Regarding Mere Possibilty of Experts, re 192 Third MOTION in Limine to Exclude Autopsy Photographs, re 196 Seventh MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Expert's Prior Cases, re 202 MOTION in Limine No, 13 to Limit Testimony Regarding Plaintiffs' Expert Larissa J. Mooney, M.D. filed by Zelda Sancho. (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 2/26/2014) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
226 RESPONSE (re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions ) IN OPPOSITION TO CORIZON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #1 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Helm, Thomas) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
227 RESPONSE (re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions ) IN OPPOSITION TO CORIZON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #2 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Helm,

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 31 of 50

02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014
02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014

Thomas) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
228 RESPONSE (re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions ) IN OPPOSITION TO CORIZON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #3 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Helm, Thomas) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
229 RESPONSE (re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions ) IN OPPOSITION TO CORIZON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #4 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Helm, Thomas) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
230 RESPONSE (re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions ) IN OPPOSITION TO CORIZON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #5 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Helm, Thomas) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
231 RESPONSE (re 187 MOTION in Limine #'s 1−9 ) TO DEFENDANT SANCHO'S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
232 RESPONSE (re 187 MOTION in Limine #'s 1−9 ) TO DEFENDANT SANCHO'S MOTION IN LIMINE #2 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
233 RESPONSE (re 180 Fifth MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT CORIZON'S EXPERT ROBERT D. JONES, M.D., 176 First MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT RON MARTINELLI, 181 Sixth MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF THE CORIZON AND COUNTY DEFENDANTS' EXPERT ARTHUR KLATSKY, M.D. ) filed byZelda Sancho. (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
234 RESPONSE (re 187 MOTION in Limine #'s 1−9 ) TO DEFENDANT SANCHO'S MOTION IN LIMINE #3 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
235 RESPONSE (re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions); RESPONSE TO CORIZON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #6 filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Helm, Thomas) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
236 RESPONSE (re 187 MOTION in Limine #'s 1−9 ) TO DEFENDANT SANCHO'S MOTION IN LIMINE #4 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
237 RESPONSE (re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions ) RESPONSE TO CORIZON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #7 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Helm, Thomas) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
238 RESPONSE (re 187 MOTION in Limine #'s 1−9 ) TO DEFENDANT SANCHO'S MOTION IN LIMINE #5 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
239 RESPONSE (re 187 MOTION in Limine #'s 1−9 ) TO DEFENDANT SANCHO'S MOTION IN LIMINE #6 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
240 RESPONSE (re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions); RESPONSE TO CORIZON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #8 filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Helm, Thomas) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
241 RESPONSE (re 187 MOTION in Limine #'s 1−9 ) TO DEFENDANT SANCHO'S MOTION IN LIMINE #7 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 32 of 50

02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014
02/27/2014 02/27/2014
02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014
02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014

242 RESPONSE (re 187 MOTION in Limine #'s 1−9 ) TO DEFENDANT SANCHO'S MOTION IN LIMINE #8 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
243 RESPONSE (re 187 MOTION in Limine #'s 1−9 ) TO DEFENDANT SANCHO'S MOTION IN LIMINE #9 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
244 RESPONSE (re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions); RESPONSE TO CORIZON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #9 filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Helm, Thomas) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
245 RESPONSE (re 210 MOTION to Bifurcate ) TO CORIZON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR BIFURCATION filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
246 RESPONSE (re 211 MOTION in Limine Notice of Motions in Limine and Motions ) to Defendant Corizon and Orr's Motion in Limine #2 (Excluding One of the County's Forensic Pathologists from Testifying) filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
247 RESPONSE (re 205 MOTION in Limine No. 16 to Exclude Opinions of Dr. Schoenfeld Regarding the Cause of Death ) filed byZelda Sancho. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Martha M. Stringer, # 2 Exhibits A and B to the Declaration of Martha M. Stringer)(Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
248 RESPONSE (re 176 First MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT RON MARTINELLI ) to Plaintifffs' First Motion in Limine to Limit Testimony of Ron Martinelli, Ph.D. filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
249 RESPONSE (re 190 First MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Reference to Code of Silence ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #1 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
250 RESPONSE (re 191 Second MOTION in Limine to Exclude Inflammatory Language Regarding Use of Force ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #2 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
251 RESPONSE (re 177 Second MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT ROBERT FONZI ) to Plaintiffs' Second Motion in Limine to Limit Testimony of Robert Fonzi filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
252 RESPONSE (re 192 Third MOTION in Limine to Exclude Autopsy Photographs ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #3 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
253 RESPONSE (re 193 Fourth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Deputy Martinez' Taser Certification ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #4 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
254 RESPONSE (re 194 Fifth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Reference to Deputy Unubun's Performance at Academy, Grievances, and Investigation ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #5 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 33 of 50

02/27/2014 02/27/2014
02/27/2014 02/27/2014
02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014
02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014

Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
255 RESPONSE (re 195 Sixth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Speculation by Sergeant Dudek ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #6 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
256 RESPONSE (re 178 Third MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT VINCENT J.M. DIMAIO, M.D. ) to Plaintiffs' Third Motion in Limine to Limit Testimony of Vincent J. J. Di Maio, M.D. filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Andrada, J.) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
257 RESPONSE (re 196 Seventh MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Expert's Prior Cases ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #7 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
258 RESPONSE (re 179 Fourth MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT COUNTY'S EXPERT CHARLES V. WETLI, M.D. ) to Plaintiff's Fourth Motion in Limine to Limit Testimony of Charles V. Wetli, M.D. filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
259 RESPONSE (re 197 Eighth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Dr. Baden's Prior Cases ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #8 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
260 RESPONSE (re 198 Ninth MOTION in Limine Excluding Cross−Examination of Dr. Wetli Regarding Dade County Autopsies ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #9 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
261 RESPONSE (re 182 Seventh MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, OR COMMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS CONCERNING ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT JACK RYAN WHILE HE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT ) to Plaintiffs' Seventh Motion in Limine Regarding Plaintiffs' Expert Ryan's Qualifications filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
262 RESPONSE (re 199 Tenth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Opinion by Dr. Baden Regarding Taser as Cause of Death ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #10 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
263 RESPONSE (re 200 MOTION in Limine No. 11 to Limit Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert John "Jack" Ryan ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #11 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
264 RESPONSE (re 183 Eighth MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, OR COMMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT MICHAEL BADEN'S DEMOTION AND SUBSEQUENT REINSTATEMENT LITIGATION WHILE HE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE NEW YORK CITY M ) to Plaintiffs' Eighth Motion in Limine Regarding Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Baden's Qualifications filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 34 of 50

02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014
02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014
02/27/2014
02/27/2014

Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
265 RESPONSE (re 202 MOTION in Limine No, 13 to Limit Testimony Regarding Plaintiffs' Expert Larissa J. Mooney, M.D. ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #13 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
266 RESPONSE (re 203 MOTION in Limine No. 14 to Exclude Questioning County Defendants' Expert James Rael, M.D. Regarding Medical Care ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #14 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
267 RESPONSE (re 204 MOTION in Limine No. 15 to Exclude Questions Regarding Mere Possibilty of Experts ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #15 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
268 RESPONSE (re 184 Ninth MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, COMMENT, OR ARGUMENT CONCERNING ALLEGED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY DECEDENT MARTIN C. HARRISON AGAINST NON−PARTIES, AND OTHER PRIOR "BAD ACTS" ) to Plaintiffs' Ninth Motion in Limine Regarding Allegations of Decedent's Domestic Abuse or Prior Criminal Behavior filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
269 RESPONSE (re 205 MOTION in Limine No. 16 to Exclude Opinions of Dr. Schoenfeld Regarding the Cause of Death ) TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE #16 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
270 RESPONSE (re 185 Tenth MOTION in Limine FOR LEAVE FOR ATTORNEY−CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE AND PERMISSION TO USE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE ) to Plaintiffs' Tenth Motion in Limine Regarding Trial Time and Peremptory Challenges filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
271 Declaration of Valerie Ly in Support of 251 Opposition/Response to Motion, 258 Opposition/Response to Motion, 264 Opposition/Response to Motion,, 261 Opposition/Response to Motion,, 256 Opposition/Response to Motion, 268 Opposition/Response to Motion,, 248 Opposition/Response to Motion, 270 Opposition/Response to Motion, Oppositions to Motions in Limine filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Related document(s) 251 , 258 , 264 , 261 , 256 , 268 , 248 , 270 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
272 EXHIBITS to re 251 Opposition/Response to Motion, 258 Opposition/Response to Motion, 264 Opposition/Response to Motion,, 261 Opposition/Response to Motion,, 256 Opposition/Response to Motion, 248 Opposition/Response to Motion, 270 Opposition/Response to Motion, 271 Declaration in Support,, 268 Opposition/Response to Motion,, (Exhibits A−C filed byGregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D−F, # 2 Exhibit G, # 3 Exhibit H−J, # 4 Exhibit K−L)(Related document(s) 251 , 258 , 264 , 261 , 256 , 248 , 270 , 271 , 268 ) (Ly, Valerie) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
273 Declaration of Michael M. Baden, M.D. in Support of 262 Opposition/Response to Motion, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTY

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 35 of 50

02/27/2014
02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014

DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #10 filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 262 ) (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
274 Declaration of Genevieve K. Guertin in Support of 262 Opposition/Response to Motion, 237 Opposition/Response to Motion, 252 Opposition/Response to Motion, 234 Opposition/Response to Motion, 260 Opposition/Response to Motion, 257 Opposition/Response to Motion, 229 Opposition/Response to Motion, 244 Opposition/Response to Motion, 226 Opposition/Response to Motion, 238 Opposition/Response to Motion, 249 Opposition/Response to Motion, 240 Opposition/Response to Motion, 254 Opposition/Response to Motion, 239 Opposition/Response to Motion, 227 Opposition/Response to Motion, 236 Opposition/Response to Motion, 267 Opposition/Response to Motion, 232 Opposition/Response to Motion, 265 Opposition/Response to Motion, 255 Opposition/Response to Motion, 241 Opposition/Response to Motion, 259 Opposition/Response to Motion, 231 Opposition/Response to Motion, 242 Opposition/Response to Motion, 228 Opposition/Response to Motion, 235 Opposition/Response to Motion, 263 Opposition/Response to Motion, 266 Opposition/Response to Motion, 245 Opposition/Response to Motion, 253 Opposition/Response to Motion, 250 Opposition/Response to Motion, 269 Opposition/Response to Motion, 230 Opposition/Response to Motion, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DEFENDANT CORIZON'S MOTION FOR BIFURCATION filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47)(Related document(s) 262 , 237 , 252 , 234 , 260 , 257 , 229 , 244 , 226 , 238 , 249 , 240 , 254 , 239 , 227 , 236 , 267 , 232 , 265 , 255 , 241 , 259 , 231 , 242 , 228 , 235 , 263 , 266 , 245 , 253 , 250 , 269 , 230 ) (Helm, Thomas) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
275 RESPONSE (re 201 MOTION in Limine No. 12 to Exclude Argument by Counsel and Testimony by Expert Kathryn Burns, M.D. Regarding Medical Training to Deputies and Training to CJMH Staff ) filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
276 Declaration of Julia Sherwin in Support of 275 Opposition/Response to Motion, OPPOSING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 RE: KATHRYN BURNS, MD filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, 2011 Custody Staff Fact Sheet, # 2 Exhibit B, Harold Orr, MD Deposition, # 3 Exhibit C, NCCHC Standards, # 4 Exhibit D, Defendant Deputies' Training Logs, # 5 Exhibit E, ACSO Policy J−G−08, # 6 Exhibit F, ACSO Policy 13.01, # 7 Exhibit G, Terri Granlund, RN Deposition, # 8 Exhibit H, ACSO Sergeant Cynthia Sass Deposition, # 9 Exhibit I, Gales v Winco, # 10 Exhibit J, Munoz v Giumarra Vineyards, # 11 Exhibit K, Dynetix v Synopsis, # 12 Exhibit L, County Defendants' Document Response Set Two, # 13 Exhibit M, POST Learning Domain 12, # 14 Exhibit N, Defendant Megan Hast Deposition, # 15 Exhibit O, Kathryn Burns, MD, MPH Deposition, # 16 Exhibit P, James Rael, MD Deposition)(Related document(s) 275 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
277 RESPONSE (re 184 Ninth MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, COMMENT, OR ARGUMENT CONCERNING ALLEGED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY DECEDENT MARTIN C. HARRISON AGAINST NON−PARTIES, AND OTHER PRIOR "BAD ACTS" ) Opposition filed byCorizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 36 of 50

02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/28/2014
02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 03/03/2014 03/04/2014 03/05/2014 03/06/2014 03/12/2014 03/12/2014 03/12/2014
03/31/2014
04/01/2014

278 RESPONSE (re 180 Fifth MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT CORIZON'S EXPERT ROBERT D. JONES, M.D. ) Opposition filed byCorizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Hudgins, Exhibits A−D, # 2 Exhibit E−F)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
279 RESPONSE (re 181 Sixth MOTION in Limine TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF THE CORIZON AND COUNTY DEFENDANTS' EXPERT ARTHUR KLATSKY, M.D. ) Opposition filed byCorizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Grigg, Exh. A−B)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
280 OBJECTIONS to re 225 Joinder, re 223 Joinder, re 224 Joinder; −PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS COUNTY'S AND SANCHO'S IMPROPER JOINDER IN OTHER DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE− filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Helm, Thomas) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
281 MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice, (Filing Fee: $305.00, receipt number 0971−8414535.) filed by County of Alameda. (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
282 MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice, (Filing Fee: $305.00, receipt number 0971−8414662.) filed by County of Alameda. (Drury, William) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
283 ORDER by Judge Tigar granting 281 Motion for Pro Hac Vice; granting 282 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
284 TRIAL BRIEF filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Helm, Thomas) (Filed on 3/3/2014) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
285 Minute Entry: Pretrial Conference (Date Filed: 3/4/2014). (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/4/2014) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
286 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 3/5/2014) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
287 ANSWER to Amended Complaint filed by Zelda Sancho. (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 3/6/2014) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
288 Amended Witness List filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. (AMENDED). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Deputy Brooks Report produced 2/26/14)(Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 3/12/2014) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
289 Letter Brief CONCERNING CORIZON DEFENDANTS' PRODUCTION OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 3/12/2014) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
290 JOINT LETTER BRIEF RE: TRIAL DATE, TIME LIMITS, AND CORIZON DEFENDANTS' DESIRE TO CALL PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AS TRIAL WITNESSES filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stringer vacation receipt)(Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 3/12/2014) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
291 ORDER RE: LETTER BRIEF CONCERNING CORIZON DEFENDANTS' PRODUCTION OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION re 289 Letter Brief filed by Martin Harrison, Jr., Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Joseph Harrison. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 29, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2014) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
292 Transcript of Official Electronic Record of Proceedings held on 1/23/14, before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Court Transcriber Carrie E. McKee−Parks, Telephone number 510−637−9897 email: McKee−Parks65@att.net. Tape Number: 2:53−3:50. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 37 of 50

04/07/2014
04/09/2014
04/10/2014
04/11/2014
04/14/2014
05/02/2014 05/02/2014 05/02/2014 08/07/2014 09/04/2014 09/04/2014 11/19/2014 11/19/2014

required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/7/2014. (Related documents(s) 170 ) (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2014) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
293 ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting in part and denying in part 121 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 133 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 134 Motion for Summary Judgment. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2014) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
294 ORDER RE: TRIAL SCHEDULE, BIFURCATION, MOTIONS IN LIMINE, JURY QUESTIONNAIRE, AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/5/2015 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Jury Trial set for 1/20/2015 − 3/5/2015 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 9, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2014) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
295 MOTION for Reconsideration re 293 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment; [Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration Limited to Summary Judgment of Bane Act (Civil Code Section 52.1) Claim against Defendant Megan Hast] filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 4/10/2014) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
296 AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting in part and denying in part 121 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 133 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 134 Motion for Summary Judgment. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2014) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
297 Terminating as moot 295 Motion for Reconsideration; terminating as moot 295 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration Limited to Summary Judgment of Bane Act (Civil Code Section 52.1) Claim Against Defendant Megan Hast. (jstlc1S, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 4/14/2014) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
298 Proposed Voir Dire filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.; JOINT PROPOSED JURY QUESTIONNAIRE. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 5/2/2014) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
299 Proposed Voir Dire filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.; PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL JURY QUESTIONNAIRE. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 5/2/2014) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
300 Proposed Voir Dire filed by Zelda Sancho; DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO JOINT JURY QUESTIONNAIRE. (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 5/2/2014) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
301 NOTICE of Appearance by Julia Sherwin AND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL BY RICHARD H. FRIEDMAN (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 8/7/2014) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
302 NOTICE by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. OF UNAVAILABILITY OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 9/4/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
303 NOTICE by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. OF UNAVAILABILITY OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL, AMENDED (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 9/4/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
304 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Catherine Elizabeth Koss in place of Valerie Ly (Koss, Catherine) (Filed on 11/19/2014) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
305 MOTION in Limine in Omnibus Form Per Court Order filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 1/5/2015 09:30 AM before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 12/10/2014. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 11/19/2014) (Entered: 11/19/2014)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 38 of 50

11/19/2014 11/19/2014
11/21/2014
11/21/2014 11/21/2014 11/21/2014 11/21/2014 11/21/2014 11/23/2014 11/28/2014

306 Declaration of Lois Heaney in Support of 305 MOTION in Limine in Omnibus Form Per Court Order IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY−CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Related document(s) 305 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 11/19/2014) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
307 Declaration of Julia Sherwin in Support of 305 MOTION in Limine in Omnibus Form Per Court Order filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Designated Confidential, to file under seal, # 2 Exhibit B, Corizon Press Release, # 3 Exhibit C, Sholey Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D, Emails re: Joint Letter, # 5 Exhibit E, Corizon Health and Inc Press Releases, # 6 Exhibit F, Corizon 2012 to 2014 Corporate Reports, # 7 Exhibit G, Corizon Trademark Logo, # 8 Exhibit H, Corizon Executive Summary, # 9 Exhibit I, Corizon 010312 Letter, # 10 Exhibit J, Corizon 030712 Letter, # 11 Exhibit K, Emails re: Trial in Oakland, # 12 Exhibit L, Terri Granlund, RN, Dep, # 13 Exhibit M, Sgt. Cynthia Sass Dep, # 14 Exhibit N, Thomas Rogers, M.D. Dep, # 15 Exhibit O, Krystle Harrison Dep Excerpts, # 16 Exhibit P, Rosemarie Wingate Dep Excerpts, # 17 Exhibit Q, PHS 2009 Financial Information)(Related document(s) 305 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 11/19/2014) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
308 Declaration of Breana Montgomery in Support of 305 MOTION in Limine in Omnibus Form Per Court Order filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Chart of Corizon Revenue, # 2 Exhibit B−1, Corizon contracts and revenue, # 3 Exhibit B−2, Corizon contracts and revenue, # 4 Exhibit B−3, Corizon contracts and revenue, # 5 Exhibit B−4, Corizon contracts and revenue, # 6 Exhibit B−5, Corizon contracts and revenue, # 7 Exhibit B−6, Corizon contracts and revenue, # 8 Exhibit B−7, Corizon contracts and revenue, # 9 Exhibit C−1, Corizon website, # 10 Exhibit C−2, Corizon website, # 11 Exhibit C−3, Corizon website, # 12 Exhibit C−4, Corizon website, # 13 Exhibit C−5, Corizon website, # 14 Exhibit C−6, Corizon website, # 15 Exhibit C−7, Corizon website, # 16 Exhibit C−8, Corizon website, # 17 Exhibit C−9, Corizon website, # 18 Exhibit C−10, Corizon website, # 19 Exhibit C−11, Corizon website, # 20 Exhibit C−12, Corizon website)(Related document(s) 305 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
309 MOTION in Limine by Defendants in Omnibus Format filed by County of Alameda. Responses due by 12/5/2014. Replies due by 12/12/2014. (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
310 Declaration in Support of 309 MOTION in Limine by Defendants in Omnibus Format by Nancy E. Hudgins filed byCounty of Alameda. (Related document(s) 309 ) (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
311 Declaration of Matthew M. Grigg in Support of 309 MOTION in Limine by Defendants in Omnibus Format filed byCounty of Alameda. (Related document(s) 309 ) (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
312 Declaration of Martha M. Stringer in Support of 309 MOTION in Limine by Defendants in Omnibus Format filed byCounty of Alameda. (Related document(s) 309 ) (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 309 MOTION in Limine by Defendants in Omnibus Format. Motion Hearing set for 1/5/2015 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
313 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal OR TO UNSEAL CORIZON FINANCIAL INFORMATION filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Julia Sherwin, # 2 Exhibit Redacted Exhibit A, Corizon Financial Information, # 3 Exhibit Unredacted Exhibit A, Corizon Financial Information, # 4 Proposed Order)(Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 11/23/2014) (Entered: 11/23/2014)
314 RESPONSE to (re 313 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal OR TO UNSEAL CORIZON FINANCIAL INFORMATION) filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Attachments: #(1) Declaration of Nancy Hudgins, #(2) Objections to Evidence, #(3) Proposed Order)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 11/28/2014) (Entered: 11/28/2014)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 39 of 50

12/01/2014 12/01/2014 12/10/2014 12/10/2014
12/10/2014 12/10/2014 12/10/2014 12/10/2014 12/10/2014 12/12/2014 12/12/2014 12/12/2014

315 Declaration of Walker in Support of 314 Opposition/Response to Motion to File Under Seal filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Related document(s) 314 ) (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 12/1/2014) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
316 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING JURY TRIAL DATE. The Jury Trial previously scheduled to begin on 1/20/2015 is continued to 2/2/2015 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. The pretrial conference remains set for 1/5/2015 at 9:30 AM. This is a text only entry. There is no document associated with this notice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2014) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
317 RESPONSE to (re 309 MOTION in Limine by Defendants in Omnibus Format) filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 12/10/2014) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
318 Declaration of Julia Sherwin in Support of 317 Opposition/Response to Motion In Support of Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants Motions in Limine filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Rogers Dep. Vol. 1, # 2 Exhibit B − Rogers Dep. Vol. 2, # 3 Exhibit C − Admitted UoF Table, # 4 Exhibit D(1) − Autopsy Photos, # 5 Exhibit D(2) − Autopsy Photos, # 6 Exhibit E − Taser Training, # 7 Exhibit F − Taser Warnings, # 8 Exhibit G − Mooney Expert Reports, # 9 Exhibit H − Mooney Dep., # 10 Exhibit I − Gilbert Dep., # 11 Exhibit J − Cert. of No Records, # 12 Exhibit K − Wild Dep., # 13 Exhibit L − Joseph Harrison Dep. Vol. 1, # 14 Exhibit M − Joseph Harrison Dep. Vol. 2, # 15 Exhibit N − Martin Harrison Dep. Vol. 2, # 16 Exhibit O − DiMaio Dep., # 17 Exhibit P − Schoenfeld Dep., # 18 Exhibit Q − Gilbert PMK Dep., # 19 Exhibit R − Klatsky Dep.)(Related document(s) 317 ) (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 12/10/2014) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
319 RESPONSE re Responsive to Plaintiffs Omnibus 305 Motion in Limine filed by County of Alameda. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru F, # 2 Exhibit G, # 3 Exhibit H thru L)(Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 12/10/2014) Modified on 12/29/2014 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2014)
320 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 319 MOTION in Limine; Responsive to Plaintiffs Omnibus Motion in Limine; −Declaration of Matthew M. Grigg in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine NO. 9 to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Klatsky filed by County of Alameda. (Related document(s) 319 ) (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 12/10/2014) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
321 AFFIDAVIT in Support re Defendants Motion in Limine Responsive to Plaintiffs Omnibus Motion in Limine; −−Exhibit D to Declaration of Matthew M. Grigg in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Klatsky− filed byCounty of Alameda. (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 12/10/2014)..Modified on 12/12/2014 (tnS). (Entered: 12/10/2014)
322 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Defendants Responsive Motion in Limine Responsive to Plaintiffs Omnibus Motion in Limine; −−DECLARATION of Nancy E. Hudgins in Support of Defendants Dr. Orr and Corizon's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine− filed by County of Alameda. (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 12/10/2014) ..Modified on 12/12/2014 (tnS). (Entered: 12/10/2014)
323 Declaration of Catherine Koss, Esq. in Support of Defendant Alameda County's Motion in Limine Responsive to Plaintiffs' Omnibus Motion in Limine filed by County of Alameda. (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 12/10/2014) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
324 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by County of Alameda Re−Filing Declaration of Catherine Koss with Exhibits Attached Thereto (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 12/12/2014) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
325 Declaration of Catherine Koss, Esq. in Support of 323 Declaration in Support of Defendant Alameda County's Motion in Limine Responsive to Plaintiffs' Omnibus Motion in Limine filed by County of Alameda. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A thru F, #(2) Exhibit G, #(3) Exhibit H thru L)(Related document(s) 323 ) (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 12/12/2014) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
326 RESPONSE to (re 309 MOTION in Limine by Defendants in Omnibus Format); County Defendants in Opposition to Defendant Corizon and Orr's Motion in Limine #11 (Excluding One of County of Alameda's and Hast's Two Expert Forensic

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 40 of 50

12/14/2014 12/19/2014 12/23/2014 12/23/2014 12/23/2014 12/24/2014 12/26/2014 12/26/2014 12/26/2014 12/26/2014 12/26/2014 12/26/2014 12/26/2014 12/31/2014 12/31/2014
12/31/2014
01/02/2015

Pathologist filed by County of Alameda. (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 12/12/2014) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
327 PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED Exhibit List filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr... (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 12/14/2014) (Entered: 12/14/2014)
328 ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 313 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2014) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
329 TRIAL BRIEF by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 12/23/2014) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
330 Witness List by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr . (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 12/23/2014) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
331 OBJECTIONS to re 327 Exhibit List by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 12/23/2014) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
332 OBJECTIONS to PLAINTIFFS' UPDATED OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBITS by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
333 Proposed Jury Instructions by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. (Plaintiffs' Updated Jury Instructions). (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 12/26/2014) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
334 Joinder re 329 Trial Brief by Zelda Sancho. (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 12/26/2014) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
335 Joinder re 330 Witness List by Zelda Sancho. (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 12/26/2014) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
336 Joinder re 331 Objection by Zelda Sancho. (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 12/26/2014) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
337 Witness List by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. (Plaintiffs' Updated Witness List). (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 12/26/2014) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
338 Pretrial Conference Statement by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr Joint Statement. (Ho, Carol) (Filed on 12/26/2014) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
339 Exhibit List by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr.. (Ho, Carol) (Filed on 12/26/2014) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
340 MOTION to Continue Trial Based on Scheduling Conflict, Notice of Conflict & Request to be Heard at Pre−Trial Conference on 1/5/2015 filed by County of Alameda. (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 12/31/2014) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
341 Declaration of William W. Drury in Support of 340 MOTION to Continue Trial Based on Scheduling Conflict, Notice of Conflict & Request to be Heard at Pre−Trial Conference on 1/5/2015 filed byCounty of Alameda. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 340 ) (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 12/31/2014) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
342 RESPONSE to (re 340 MOTION to Continue Trial Based on Scheduling Conflict, Notice of Conflict & Request to be Heard at Pre−Trial Conference on 1/5/2015) filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 12/31/2014) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
343 ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE 17 AND CORIZON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE 1 re 309 MOTION in Limine by Defendants in Omnibus Format filed by County of Alameda; 317 Opposition/Response to Motion filed by Martin Harrison, Jr., Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Joseph Harrison. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 1, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2015) (Entered: 01/02/2015)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 41 of 50

01/02/2015 01/02/2015 01/02/2015 01/05/2015
01/05/2015 01/06/2015 01/06/2015
01/06/2015 01/08/2015
01/09/2015

344 ORDER RE JANUARY 5, 2015 PRE−TRIAL CONFERENCE The parties are ordered to bring a copy of the photographs that are the subject of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Number Three to the pre−trial conference on January 5, 2015, so the Court can view them. (Entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar) (Filed on 1/2/2015) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
345 ORDER RE JANUARY 5, 2015 PRE−TRIAL CONFERENCE The parties are ordered to bring copies of the photographs that are the subject of the County Defendants' Motion in Limine Number Three to the pre−trial conference on January 5, 2015. (This order corrects an error in a prior order, which described the motion in question as Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine Number Three.) (Entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar) (Filed on 1/2/2015) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
346 ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE re 309 MOTION in Limine by Defendants in Omnibus Format filed by County of Alameda, 305 MOTION in Limine in Omnibus Form Per Court Order filed by Martin Harrison, Jr., Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Joseph Harrison. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 2, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2015) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
347 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Final Pretrial Conference held on 1/5/2015; Motion Hearing held on 1/5/2015 re 309 MOTION in Limine by Defendants in Omnibus Format filed by County of Alameda; 340 MOTION to Continue Trial Based on Scheduling Conflict filed by County of Alameda; 305 MOTION in Limine in Omnibus Form Per Court Order filed by Martin Harrison, Jr., Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Joseph Harrison; denying 340 Motion to Continue. Court Reporter Name: Rhonda Aquilina. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/5/2015) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
348 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 5, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2015) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2015) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
349 NOTICE AND ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/6/2015. The court sets the settlement conference on January 14, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., which is the first date that it has. The requirements for the settlement conference (including contents of the exchanged and/or confidential settlement conference statements, the necessity of a monetary demand and response, and required attendees) are in the attached order. If the date does not work for the parties, they must schedule a call with all counsel on one line on Friday, January 9, 2015, with courtroom deputy Lashanda Scott to set another time. They may arrange a time for that call by email to the court's orders box at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov or by telephone to Ms. Scott at 415−522−3140. The parties should know that accommodating a different date may necessitate the court's rescheduling other settlement conferences. The court's view is that given the output of time to prepare for trial, getting in earlier rather than later makes the most sense. The parties also should review the other side's list of attendees and identify any other relevant decision makers who should attend. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2015) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
350 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by County of Alameda for Court Reporter Rhonda Aquilina. (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 1/6/2015) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
351 Transcript of Proceedings held on 01/05/2015, before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Court Reporter Rhonda Aquilina, Telephone number 415−264−0580. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 350 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/8/2015. (Related documents(s) 350 ) (Aquilina, Rhonda) (Filed on 1/8/2015) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
352 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE on January 14, 2015 before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Settlement Conference reset to 1/27/2015

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 42 of 50

01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/12/2015 01/12/2015
01/12/2015 01/12/2015 01/12/2015 01/12/2015 01/13/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015

at 10:00 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. The Order Setting Settlement Conference on 1/6/2015, ECF No. 349 remains in affect. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2015) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
353 NOTICE filed by Zelda Sancho − Request that Personal Attendance at Settlement Conference Be Excused (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 1/9/2015) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
354 NOTICE by Zelda Sancho of Lodging of Exchanged Settlement Conference Statement and Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 1/9/2015) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
355 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE COUNTY AND CORIZON'S DEFENDANTS' UNDISCLOSED WITNESSES, AND FOR DEPOSITION OF JEFF SHOLEY filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. Responses due by 1/16/2015. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
356 Declaration of Julia Sherwin in Support of 355 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE COUNTY AND CORIZON'S UNDISCLOSED WITNESSES, AND FOR DEPOSITION OF JEFF SHOLEY filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Corizon Defendants' Initial Disclosures, # 2 Exhibit B, County Defendants' Initial Disclosures, # 3 Exhibit C, Corizon Defendants' Expert Disclosures, # 4 Exhibit D, County Defendants' Expert Disclosures, # 5 Exhibit E, Defendant Sancho's Expert Disclosures, # 6 Exhibit F, Kathryn Wild, RN Deposition Transcript, # 7 Exhibit G, Terri Granlund, RN Deposition Transcript, # 8 Exhibit H, ACSO Sergeant Cynthia Sass Deposition Transcript)(Related document(s) 355 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
357 ORDER DENYING REQUEST THAT THE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF ZELDA SANCHO AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BE EXCUSED: Re 353 Notice filed by Zelda Sancho. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/12/2015. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
358 REPORT Upon Status of County Motion in Limine Number 3 filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Andrada, J.) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
359 NOTICE by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr re 352 Clerk's Notice; −Request that Personal Attendance of Dr. Orr at Settlement Conference Be Excused (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
360 STIPULATION Pursuant To Order On Corizon Defendants' Motion In Limine No. 2 filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
361 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST THAT THE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF HAROLD ORR, JR., M.D., AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BE EXCUSED: Re 359 Notice filed by Harold Orr, Corizon Health Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/13/2015. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2015) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
362 Statement of the Case filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Andrada, J.) (Filed on 1/14/2015) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
363 [Proposed] Jury Instructions by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. −PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED JURY INSTRUCTION 1.2, CLAIMS AND DEFENSES (STATEMENT OF THE CASE). (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 1/14/2015) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
364 NOTICE by Zelda Sancho of Amended Request that the Personal Attendance of Zelda Sancho at the 1/27/15 Settlement Conference Be Excused and Declaration in Support (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 1/14/2015) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 43 of 50

01/14/2015
01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/16/2015 01/16/2015
01/16/2015 01/17/2015 01/17/2015 01/17/2015 01/17/2015
01/20/2015
01/20/2015 01/21/2015

365 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING CALIFORNIA BOARD OF VOCATIONAL NURSING AND PSYCHIATRIC TECHNICIANS FINE IMPOSED ON DEFENDANT ZELDA SANCHO, L.V.N. filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 1/14/2015) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
366 Statement of the Case (Proposed) filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr, Zelda Sancho. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/14/2015) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
367 OBJECTIONS to re 363 Proposed Jury Instructions by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/14/2015) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
368 Joinder in re 367 Objection to Plaintiffs' Amended Jury Instruction 1.2 (Docket No. 367) filed by Zelda Sancho. (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 1/15/2015) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
369 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for Daily Trial by County of Alameda. (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 1/15/2015) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
370 OBJECTIONS to re 362 Statement, 366 Statement (Re: Defendants' Proposed Statements of the Case) by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 1/16/2015) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
371 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR MS. SANCHO TO ATTEND THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE FROM 10:00 a.m. TO/UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 12:30 p.m.: Re 364 Notice (Other) filed by Zelda Sancho. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/16/2015. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2015) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
372 RESPONSE to (re 355 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE COUNTY AND CORIZON'S UNDISCLOSED WITNESSES) filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Attachments: #(1) Declaration)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/16/2015) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
373 NOTICE by County of Alameda; Request that Personal Appearance by Defendant Megan Hast at Settlement Conference be Excused (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 1/17/2015) (Entered: 01/17/2015)
374 NOTICE by County of Alameda; Request that the Personal Appearance of Defendant Michael Bareno be Excused at Settlement Conference (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 1/17/2015) (Entered: 01/17/2015)
375 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 5, 6, AND 7 filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 1/17/2015) (Entered: 01/17/2015)
376 Declaration of Julia Sherwin in Support of 375 Pretrial Memorandum filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, California Correctional Medical Services Scope of Practice, # 2 Exhibit B, CNA Bulletin on RN and LVN Scope of Practice, # 3 Exhibit C, Deposition Transcript of Robert Jones, M.D., # 4 Exhibit D, Deposition Transcript of Kathryn Wild, R.N.)(Related document(s) 375 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 1/17/2015) (Entered: 01/17/2015)
377 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST THAT THE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF DEFENDANT MEGAN HAST AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BE EXCUSED: Re: 373 Notice (Other) filed by County of Alameda. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/20/2015. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2015) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
378 ORDER: Defendants must check with plaintiffs about their position. Re: 374 Notice (Other) filed by County of Alameda. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/20/2015. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2015) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
379 RESPONSE to (re 355 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE COUNTY AND CORIZON'S UNDISCLOSED WITNESSES); County Defendants' Objection and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude County and Corizon Defendants'

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 44 of 50

01/23/2015 01/23/2015
01/26/2015 01/26/2015
01/26/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015 01/27/2015 01/28/2015 01/28/2015

Undisclosed Witnesses filed by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde. (Koss, Catherine) (Filed on 1/21/2015) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
380 OBJECTIONS to re 375 Pretrial Memorandum by Zelda Sancho. (Stringer, Martha) (Filed on 1/23/2015) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
381 ORDER regarding settlement conference. Plaintiffs have made a demand. The court appreciates that defendants recount their past responses but directs the defendants to submit a current response to the current demand (broken out by defendant if appropriate) and email it to the court's orders box at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov no later than Monday at noon. In addition, if they have not done so already, the defendants must provide their fees and costs to date and their additional fees and costs through trial. Finally, if the parties have any concerns that the appropriate people are not attending, they must notify the court by noon on Monday by email to the orders box. (This is a text entry order generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 1/23/2015) Modified on 1/26/2015 (lsS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2015)
382 CLERK'S NOTICE ADVANCING THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE TIME ONLY: Settlement Conference reset to 1/27/2015 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2015) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
383 ORDER REGARDING NUMBER OF JURORS, JURY QUESTIONNAIRE, VOIR DIRE, AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES re 299 Proposed Voir Dire filed by Martin Harrison, Jr., Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Joseph Harrison, 300 Proposed Voir Dire filed by Zelda Sancho, 298 Proposed Voir Dire filed by Martin Harrison, Jr., Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Joseph Harrison, 305 MOTION in Limine in Omnibus Form Per Court Order filed by Martin Harrison, Jr., Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Joseph Harrison. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 25, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2015) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
384 NOTICE filed by County of Alameda of Renewed Request to Excused Personal Appearance of Defendant Bareno at Settlement Conference and No Objection from Plaintiffs (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 1/26/2015) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
385 ORDER GRANTING COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S RENEWED REQUEST TO EXCUSE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF DEFENDANT BARENO AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED: Re 384 Notice filed by County of Alameda. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/26/2015. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2015) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
386 RESPONSE to re 375 Pretrial Memorandum filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/26/2015) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
387 TRIAL BRIEF (UPDATED FOR 2015) filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 1/26/2015) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
388 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 1/27/2015. Case did not settle. Counsel to contact the court at any time if further facilitated settlement conversations would be fruitful. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/27/2015) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
389 MOTION in Limine filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. Responses due by 2/11/2015. Replies due by 2/18/2015. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/28/2015) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
390 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING AUDIO−VISUAL EQUIPMENT FOR TRIAL filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 1/28/2015) (Entered:

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 45 of 50

01/28/2015 01/28/2015
01/28/2015
01/29/2015 01/29/2015
01/30/2015 01/30/2015
01/30/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 02/01/2015

01/28/2015)
391 Exhibit List (AMENDED) by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr... (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 1/28/2015) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
392 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST RE AUDIO−VISUAL EQUIPMENT The parties' stipulated request for an order allowing audio−visual equipment for trial, ECF No. 390, is granted. (Entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar) (wsn, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/29/2015 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2015)
393 ORDER RE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to provide 250 copies of the juror questionnaire for use during jury selection. The questionnaire shall be in the same form it appears at ECF No. 298, but without the caption page and with the following footer: CASE NO. 11−CV−2868 JST: JURY QUESTIONNAIRE. (Entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar) (Filed on 1/28/2015) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
394 RESPONSE to (re 389 MOTION in Limine); Opposition to Corizon Defendants' Motion in Limine Re: Preclusion of Use of Terms "PMK," "PMQ," "Person Most Qualified," and "Person Most Knowledgeable" filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 1/29/2015) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
395 Declaration of Genevieve K. Guertin in Support of 394 Opposition/Response to Motion, in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Corizon Defendants' Motion in Limine Re: Preclusion of Use of Terms "PMK," "PMQ," "Person Most Qualified," and "Person Most Knowledgeable" filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Gilbert PMK Dep, # 2 Exhibit B − Granlund PMK Dep, # 3 Exhibit C − Orr PMK Dep, # 4 Exhibit D − Back PMK Dep, # 5 Exhibit E − Sass PMK Dep)(Related document(s) 394 ) (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 1/29/2015) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
396 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM; (REPLY TO CORIZON DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 5 − 7) filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 1/30/2015) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
397 Declaration of Julia Sherwin in Support of 396 Pretrial Memorandum, 375 Pretrial Memorandum (Supplemental) filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Deposition transcript of Kathryn Burns, M.D., # 2 Exhibit B−1, Kathryn Wild, R.N. Power Point, Part 1, # 3 Exhibit B−2, Kathryn Wild, R.N. Power Point, Part 2)(Related document(s) 396 , 375 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 1/30/2015) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
398 MOTION in Limine re Preclusion of Uncited Discovery Responses filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. Responses due by 2/2/2015. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/30/2015) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
399 CLERK'S NOTICE REGARDING LOCATION OF FIST DAY OF JURY SELECTION. The first day of Jury Selection will begin as previously scheduled on 2/2/2015 at 8:30 AM, but will be held in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2015) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
400 MOTION in Limine To Preclude Use Of Corizon Website filed by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. Responses due by 2/2/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of M. Grigg)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/30/2015) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
403 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Further Settlement Conference held on 1/29/2015 and 1/30/2015. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/30/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
401 FURTHER ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 1, 2015. (Filed on 2/1/2015) (Entered: 02/01/2015)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 46 of 50

02/01/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015
02/02/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015
02/03/2015
02/03/2015 02/03/2015

402 TRIAL BRIEF Re Objection To Unpleaded Claim by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/1/2015) (Entered: 02/01/2015)
404 NOTICE by County of Alameda Re Motion to Allow Demostrative Exhibits into the Courtroom including a Taser (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
405 [Proposed] Order Allowing Demostrative Exhibits including Taser into the Courtroom filed by County of Alameda. (Hunter, Jeffrey) (Filed on 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
406 ORDER REGARDING JUROR HARDSHIP REQUESTS. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 2, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
407 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Jury Selection held on 2/2/2015. Court Reporter Name: Lydia Zinn. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Jury Trial set for 3/19/2015 − 4/16/2015 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
408 Transcript of Proceedings Vol. 1, held on 02/02/2015, before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lydia Zinn, Telephone number (415) 531−6587. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 369 Transcript Order − Daily Trial ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/4/2015. (Related documents(s) 369 ) (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
409 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 2, 2015. (Entered 2/2/15)(Filed on 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
410 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S MOTION TO ALLOW DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS re 404 Notice filed by County of Alameda. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 2, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
411 ORDER REGARDING TRIAL SCHEDULE Counsel will arrive in the courtroom by 8:00 a.m. each day that trial is in session, so that any matter that requires the Court's participation, and that must be conducted outside the presence of the jury, can be completed before the jury begins hearing evidence at 8:30 a.m. (Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 2, 2015.)(Filed on 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
412 ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATION RE DEFENDANT ZELDA SANCHO, L.V.N. The Court adopts the parties' stipulation regarding the California Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians fine, ECF No. 365, and adopts it as the Court's order. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
413 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Jury Trial held on 2/3/2015. Court Reporters: Lydia Zinn; Rhonda Aquilina. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/3/2015) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
414 Transcript of Proceedings Volume 2, held on 02/03/2015, before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lydia Zinn and Rhonda Aquilina, Telephone number (415) 531−6587. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 47 of 50

02/04/2015 02/04/2015 02/04/2015
02/05/2015 02/05/2015
02/05/2015 02/06/2015 02/06/2015 02/09/2015 02/09/2015

Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 369 Transcript Order − Daily Trial ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/4/2015. (Related documents(s) 369 ) (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 2/3/2015) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
415 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for Daily Trial by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/4/2015) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
416 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Jury Trial held on 2/4/2015. Court Reportera: Lydia Zinn; Rhonda Aquilina. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/4/2015) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
417 Transcript of Proceedings Volume 3, held on 02/04/2015, before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lydia Zinn and Rhonda Aquilina, Telephone number (415) 531−6587. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 369 Transcript Order − Daily Trial, 415 Transcript Order − Daily Trial ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/5/2015. (Related documents(s) 369 , 415 ) (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 2/4/2015) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
418 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Jury Trial held on 2/5/2015. Court Reporters: Lydia Zinn; Rhonda Aquilina. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/5/2015) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
419 Transcript of Proceedings Volume 4 held on 2/5/2015, before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lydia Zinn and Rhonda Aquilina, Telephone number (415) 531−6587. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 369 Transcript Order − Daily Trial, 415 Transcript Order − Daily Trial ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/6/2015. (Related documents(s) 369 , 415 ) (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 2/5/2015) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
420 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Further Settlement Conference held on 2/5/2015. Settlement conference held. Further discussion to be held Friday, February 6, 2015 at approximately 12:30 p.m. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/5/2015) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
421 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING Further In−Person Settlement Conference for 2/9/2015 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2015) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
422 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING FEBRUARY 9, 2015 TRIAL DATE. Jury trial in this matter scheduled for Monday, February 9, 2015 is vacated. Trial will be dark on that date and resume on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. This is a text only entry. There is no document associated with this notice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2015) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
423 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING FEBRUARY 10, 2015 TRIAL DATE. Jury trial in this matter scheduled for Tuesday, February 10, 2015 is vacated. Trial will be dark on that date and resume on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. This is a text only entry. There is no document associated with this notice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2015) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
429 Amended Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 2/9/2015. Amendment to Minute Order to reflect FTR Time 1:45−1:55. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/9/2015) (Entered: 02/11/2015)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 48 of 50

02/10/2015 02/10/2015
02/10/2015 02/10/2015 02/11/2015 02/11/2015 02/12/2015
02/15/2015
02/18/2015 02/20/2015 02/23/2015 02/26/2015 02/26/2015 02/26/2015

424 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Further Settlement Conference held on 2/10/2015. Case settled pending agency approval. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/10/2015) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
425 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held on 2/10/2015. Counsel for Alameda County informed the court that the Board approved the settlement this morning. The parties will file the necessary stipulated dismissals and settlement agreement with the district court shortly. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/10/2015) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
426 JURY TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2015) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
427 COURT EXHIBIT LIST. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2015) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
428 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. for Court Reporter FTR − San Francisco. (Guertin, Genevieve) (Filed on 2/11/2015) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
430 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Corizon Health Inc, Harold Orr for Court Reporter FTR − San Francisco. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 2/11/2015) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
431 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Gregory J. Ahern, M. Alhf, Michael Bareno, County of Alameda, Megan Hast, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Roberto Martinez, Fernando Rojas−Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, Joshua Swetnam, Solomon Unubun, Alejandro Valverde for Court Reporter FTR − San Francisco. (Koss, Catherine) (Filed on 2/12/2015) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
432 Transcript of Proceedings held on 02/09/2015, before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Court Reporter/Transcriber Leo T. Mankiewicz, CSR, RMR, CRR, Telephone number (415) 722−7045; email: leomank@gmail.com. FTR 1:45 p.m. − 1:55 p.m. = 10 minutes. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 3/9/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/18/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/18/2015. (Mankiewicz, Leo) (Filed on 2/15/2015) (Entered: 02/15/2015)
433 ORDER REGARDING RETENTION OF EXHIBITS AND RETRIEVAL OF TRIAL MATERIALS. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 18, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2015) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
434 CLERK'S NOTICE: Settlement Conference set for 2/26/2015 at 12:30 PM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. The court will allot two hours for the conference. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2015) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
435 NOTICE by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr. of Unavailability of Plaintiffs' Counsel (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 2/23/2015) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
436 STIPULATION Dismissing Individual Defendants filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 2/26/2015) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
437 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER OF SETTLEMENT filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 2/26/2015) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
438 STIPULATION PARTIALLY DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS filed by Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 2/26/2015) (Entered: 02/26/2015)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 49 of 50

02/26/2015 02/27/2015 02/27/2015 02/27/2015 09/21/2015 09/22/2015
09/28/2015 10/28/2015 10/28/2015 12/09/2015 12/10/2015
12/22/2015 12/22/2015

439 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 2/26/2015. Further settlement conference held. Terms of settlement as to injunctive relief component finalized and efiled. (Not Reported)(lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/26/2015) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
440 ORDER NOTING DISMISSAL re 436 Stipulation filed by Martin Harrison, Jr., Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Joseph Harrison. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 27, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2015) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
441 MINUTE ORDER NOTING DISMISSAL re 438 Stipulation filed by Martin Harrison, Jr., Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Joseph Harrison. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 27, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2015) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
442 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT re 437 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER OF SETTLEMENT filed by Martin Harrison, Jr., Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Joseph Harrison. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 27, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2015) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
443 REQUEST FOR CORRECTION TO ORDER APPROVING MINORS COMPROMISE filed by M.H.. Responses due by 10/5/2015. Replies due by 10/13/2015. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A−Clarification to Order Approving Minor's Compromise, #(2) Exhibit B−Quote for Structured Settlement Annuity) (Nisenbaum, Benjamin) (Filed on 9/21/2015) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
444 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE re 443 MOTION REQUEST FOR CORRECTION TO ORDER APPROVING MINORS COMPROMISE filed by M.H. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/21/2015 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 21, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2015) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
445 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE. Due to a change in the Court's availability, the status conference previously set for 10/21/2015 is continued to 10/28/2015 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2015) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
446 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by M.H. (Nisenbaum, Benjamin) (Filed on 10/28/2015) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
447 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Further Case Management Conference held on 10/28/2015. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/6/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco.Court Reporter: Belle Ball. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/28/2015) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
448 MOTION to Intervene filed by Kristy Kite. Motion Hearing set for 1/14/2016 02:00 PM before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 12/23/2015. Replies due by 12/30/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Torres, Javier) (Filed on 12/9/2015) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
449 CLERK'S NOTICE REGARDING HEARING DATE as to 448 MOTION to Intervene. The hearing on this motion will be held on 1/14/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 12/23/2015. Replies due by 12/30/2015. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2015) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
450 Statement of Non−Opposition re 448 MOTION to Intervene filed byJoseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr.. (Related document(s) 448 ) (Sherwin, Julia) (Filed on 12/22/2015) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
451 RESPONSE (re 448 MOTION to Intervene ) filed byCorizon Health Inc, Harold Orr. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 12/22/2015) (Entered: 12/22/2015)

Case: 3:11-cv-2868 As of: 05/23/2018 08:25 AM PDT 50 of 50

12/28/2015 01/04/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016
01/21/2016 12/20/2016 12/07/2017

452 REPLY (re 448 MOTION to Intervene ) filed byKristy Kite. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−B)(Torres, Javier) (Filed on 12/28/2015) (Entered: 12/28/2015)
453 ORDER VACATING HEARING re 448 MOTION to Intervene filed by Kristy Kite. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 4, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2016) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
454 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Further Case Management Conference held on 1/6/2016. Court Reporter: Jo Ann Bryce. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/6/2016) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
455 ORDER CORRECTING ORDER APPROVING MINOR'S COMPROMISE re 443 REQUEST FOR CORRECTION TO ORDER APPROVING MINORS COMPROMISE filed by M.H.. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 6, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2016) (Entered: 01/07/2016)
456 ORDER GRANTING KRISTY KITE'S MOTION TO INTERVENE by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 448 Motion to Intervene. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2016) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
457 NOTICE of Change of Address by J. Randall Andrada (Andrada, J.) (Filed on 12/20/2016) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
458 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Matthew M. Grigg (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 12/7/2017) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

 
 . ...

I

'

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 1 of 13

JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq./ State Bar #69888 BENJAMIN NISENBAUM, Esq./ State Bar #222173 2 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS Airport Corporate Centre 3 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, California 94621 4 Telephone: (510) 839-5200 Facsimile: (510) 839-3882
5
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

F'ILto&-
JUN 1 0 2011 ~ cfid~KHARO W W/E"'
NORTHERN U.s. DiSTRiCT "lNG
DiSTRiCT O COURT OAKLAND F CALJFOFiNiA

7
LTJ\TITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10
M.H., a minor, individually through her II Guardian Ad Litem, Michelle Henshaw, and as 12 successor-in-interest for Decedent MARTIN
HARRISON
13
Plaintiffs,

Case No. Cll- 0.2 86 8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

vs.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal 16 corporation; GREGORY J. AHERN, in his 17 capacity as Sheriff for the COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA; M. ALHF, individually and in his 18 official capacity as a deputy sheriff for the
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and DOES 1-100, 19 inclusive,
20
Defendants.
21
22 --------------------------------~/

23

24

25
JURISDICTION
26

27

1. This action arises under Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983. Jurisdiction

28 is conferred upon this Court by Title 28 of the United States Code, Sections 1331 and 1343. The

COMPLAINT M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

. .

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 2 of 13

unlawful acts and practices alleged herein occurred in the County of Alameda, California, which is

2 within this judicial district.
3

4

PARTIES

5

2. Minor Plaintiff herein, M.H. ("Plaintiff' herein) , is and was at all times herein

6 mentioned the son of Decedent MARTIN HARRISON. He is being represented in the instant matter

7 by his mother and Guardian Ad Litem, Michelle Henshaw. Minor Plaintiff M.H. is also Decedent

8 MARTIN HARRISON's successor-in-interest.

9

3. Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ("COUNTY") is a municipal corporation, duly

IO organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, the COUNTY

II operates the Alameda County Sheriffs Department.

12

4. Defendant M. ALHF ("AHLF" herein), is and was at all times herein mentioned a

13 deputy sheriff employed by Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. He is being sued individually and

14 in his official capacity as a deputy sheriff.

15

4. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant GREGORY J. AHERN ("AHERN") was

16 employed by Defendant COUNTY as Sheriff for the COUNTY. He is being sued in his official

17 capacity as Sheriff for the COUNTY.

18

5. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through

19 100, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed an

20 believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant so named is responsible in some manner for the

21 injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs as set forth herein. Plaintiffs will amend their complaint

22 to state the names and capacities of DOES 1-100, inclusive, when they have been ascertained.

23

6. In engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant Deputy Sheriffs acted under

24 the color oflaw and in the course and scope of their employment with the COUNTY. In engaging in

25 the conduct described herein, Defendant Deputy Sheriffs exceeded the authority vested in them as

26 deputy sheriffs under the United States and California Constitutions and as deputy sheriffs employed

27 by Defendant COUNTY.
28

COMPLAINT

2

M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 3 of 13

7. Plaintiff is required to comply with an administrative tort claim requirement under

2 California law. Plaintiff has complied with all such requirements.
3

4

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5

8. On August 16,2011, Decedent MARTIN HARRISON was beaten and killed by

6 Defendant Deputy M. AHLF and other unknown COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Defendant Sheriff

7 Deputy DOES, in or near Housing Unit 33 at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, California. Apart from a

8 history of alcohol abuse, Decedent MARTIN HARRISON was a healthy, 51 year-old man, who died

9 with extreme physical injuries inflicted by the Defendants herein, including, but not limited to: a 16 lO inch by 9 inch bruise over the right lateral portion of his neck, a 4 inch by 2.5 inch contusion on the II right lateral side of his neck, a 12 inch by 17 inch bruise of the right arm, a 2.5 inch by 0.5 inch bruis

12 on the right palm; two linear abrasions, about 1.75 inches each, crossing each other to make a letter

13 "z", on the right upper arm; a 12 inch by 5 inch contusion on the left upper arm; a 10 inch by 4 inch 14 contusion on the left forearm; a 2.25 inch contusion on the left palm; a 6 inch by 3.5 inch contusion 15 on the right thigh; a 4 inch by 3.5 inch contusion on the back right shoulder; a 5 inch by 4 inch 16 contusion on Decedent's back between the 121h rib and verterbral column; a 6 inch by 4 inch bruise 17 on the left side of Decedent's back; and a 5 inch by 4 inch bruise on the back of Decedent's left

18 shoulder; a 5 inch contusion of the right clavicle; soft-tissue hemorrhaging of the upper chest; bi-

19 lateral blood-tinged pleural effusions of about 600 to 700 cc' s each (in what would ordinarily be the 20 space around Decedent's lungs); 800 cc's of blood-tinged fluid in the peritoneal cavity; 150 cc's of

21 blood-tinged fluid in the pericardia! sac; a 2 inch area of hemorrhage in the left pleural cavity; a 6 22 inch by 0.5 inch area of hemorrhage in the posterior-lateral surface of the left pleural cavity; an

23 interrupted area of hemorrhaging in the right pleural cavity covering an area of about 8 inches by 2

24 inches; very prominent soft-tissue hemorrhaging in the in the posterior and posterior-lateral aspects o

25 the right pleural cavity, extending from rib 2 or 3 all the way down to rib 12.

26

9. In addition to the foregoing evidence of an unrestrained, out of control, violent beating that

27 killed Decedent, Defendant Deputy Sheriffs AHLF and DOES also caused further significant trauma

28 to Decedent, all evidence of their homicide of Decedent: A 1.5 inch hemorrhage around the right

COMPLAINT

3

M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA et al.

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 4 of 13

front side of Decedent's larynx; a 2.25 by .75 inch area of hemorrhage over the midline of Decedent'

2 neck; a .75 inch area of hemorrhage over the left side ofthe larynx; a 3/8 inch area of hemorrhage

3 over the left side of the hyoid bone, and numerous significant areas of bruising and hemorrhaging on

4 Decedent's cranial vault. A taser was also used against Decedent 5 times for a duration of27

5 seconds.

6

9. Decedent MARTIN HARRISON came to be in Santa Rita jail following an arrest on

7 August 13, 2010, three days before the vicious, deadly beating of August 16, 2010, on a warrant for a

8 failure to appear. Decedent suffered from alcoholism, and began displaying symptoms of untreated

9 alcohol withdrawal while in custody at Santa Rita Jail on August 16, 2010. Decedent was being held

IO in an isolation cell in Housing Unit 33 of Santa Rita JaiL After he was unable to get medical attention

II for his symptoms, Decedent reportedly broke food trays in his cell and made a mess of his celL

12 Decedent blocked the toilet in his cell, causing an overflow. Decedent wore socks without shoes at

13 this time. Defendant AHLF responded to the cell, followed by other unknown Defendant Deputy

14 DOES. Each unknown Defendant DEPUTY DOE used force against Decedent, causing severe

15 injuries and deadly trauma to Decedent, as partially described above.

16

10. Following the use of extreme and deadly force against Decedent, Decedent was

17 transferred to the jail infirmary, and then to the Valley Care Medical Center. At some point in this

18 process, Decedent went into cardiac arrest. Decedent was eventually pronounced dead on August 18,

19 2010 at Valley Care Medical Center.

20

11. An autopsy performed by the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sheriffs Department,

21 Coroner's Bureau, on August 19, 2010, found injuries to Decedent previously described herein, and

22 also found that Decedent suffered shock, among other matters. The COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23 Sheriff's Department, Coroner's Bureau determined that Decedent died from Anoxic Encephalopathy

24 due to cardiac arrest following excessive physical exertion, multiple blunt injuries, and tasering. The

25 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA coroner's investigator's report found that the manner of death could not

26 be determined.

27

12. Plaintiff alleges that asphyxiation of individuals during restraint is well-documented

28 and generally-accepted such that law enforcement agencies as a matter of routine train their peace

COMPLAINT
M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et aJ.

·.

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 5 of 13

officer personnel, such as Defendant AHLF and Defendant DOES, in avoiding asphyxiation of

2 individuals during restraint.

3

13. Plaintiff further alleges Defendants were on notice that continuous, prolonged

4 exposure to the Taser ERD electricity has been proven to cause death. In fact, Taser International,

5 the manufacturer of the Taser ERD, issued a warning bulletin to law enforcement agencies published

6 August 28, 2006, specifically warning Taser users to avoid prolonged, continuous, extended, or

7 repeated Taser applications against people. The same warning bulletin specifically noted that in

8 laboratory tests on anesthetized pigs, repeated Taser exposure caused cessation of breathing during

9 the exposure. Likewise, the same warning bulletin specifically noted that people who displayed

10 symptoms of exhaustion or an alleged syndrome called "excited delirium''. characterized by

11 "superhuman strength", may be at risk of breathing impairment caused by exposure to the Taser.

12

14. Plaintiff alleges defendants grossly violated the training and standards involved in

I3 restraining a person, and in using the Taser repeatedly and in a prolonged manner in their misconduct

14 against Decedent. Plaintiff also alleges that the extreme physical injuries to Decedent, especially the

15 injuries to Decedent's neck, lung cavity, torso and head are all evidence of wanton and willful

16 violations ofDecedent's and Plaintiffs Constitutional rights.

17

15. Plaintiff alleges that Decedent's death was the result of excessive force and cruel and

18 unusual punishment by Defendant Deputy Sheriffs.

19

16. Plaintiffs further allege that Decedent's death was the proximate result of Defendant

20 COUNTY's failure to reasonably train their deputy sheriffs in the proper and reasonable use of force,

21 and using force in a manner to avoid killing people. Plaintiffs further allege that these substantial

22 failures reflect Defendant COUNTY's policies implicitly ratifying and/or authorizing the use of

23 excessive force by its deputy sheriffs and the failure to reasonably train deputy sheriffs employed by

24 Defendant COUNTY in the use of force.

25

17. The killing of decedent MARTIN HARRISON described herein was brutal, malicious,

26 and done without just provocation or cause, proximately causing Plaintiff's injuries and resulting

27 damages.

28

COMPLAINT

5

M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

•.

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 6 of 13

DAMAGES

2

18. Plaintiffs were physically, mentally, emotionally and financially injured and damaged

3

'
as a proximate result of Decedent MARTIN HARRISON's wrongful death, including, but not limited

4 to, the loss of decedent's familial relationships, comfort, protection, companionship, love, affection,

5 solace, and moral support. In addition to these damages, Plaintiff is entitled to recover for the

6 reasonable value of funeral and burial expenses, pursuant to C.C.P. Sections 377.60 and 377.61

7

19. Plaintiff is entitled to recover wrongful death damages pursuant to C.C.P. Section

8 377.60 and 377.61 and Probate Code Section 6402(b).

9

20. Pursuant to C.C.P. Sections 377.30, 377.32, and 377.34, plaintiffs are further entitled t

10 recover for damages incurred by decedent before he died as the result of being assaulted and battered

11 for deprivation without due process of decedent's right to life, and to any penalties or punitiv

12 damages to which decedent would have been entitled to recover, had he lived. Futherrnore, under 4

13 U.S.C. section 1983, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages incurred by decedent consisting of pain

14 suffering, and disfigurement prior to decedent's death.

15

21. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence, excessive force and

16 deliberate indifference of defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have been deprived of Decedent's

17 financial support.

18

22. The conduct of the defendant officers was malicious, wanton, and oppressive.

19 Plaintiff, as decedent's successor in interest, are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages

20 against said individual defendants.

21

23. Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate their

22 rights, and the rights of decedent, under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover all

23 attorneys' fees incurred in relation to this action pursuant to Title 42 United States Code section

24 1988.

25

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

26

(Wrongful Death 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

27
24. Plaintiff hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 23
28

of this Complaint.

COMPLAINT M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

·.

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 7 of 13

25. Defendants acted under color of law by killing decedent without lawful justification

2
and subjecting decedent to excessive force thereby depriving Plaintiff and the decedent of certain

3
constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to:
4

5

a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by the

6

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

7

b. The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth

8
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
lO

11

12

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

l3

(Violations of Plaintiffs' civil rights to familial relationship- 42 U.S.C. section 1983)

14

15

26. Plaintiff hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 25

16 of this Complaint.
17
27. Defendants, acting under color of law, and without due process of law deprived
18
Plaintiff of his right to a familial relationship by seizing decedent by use of unreasonable, unjustified,
19
20 cruel and unusual deadly force and violence, causing injuries which resulted in decedent's death, all

21 without provocation and did attempt to conceal their extraordinary use of force and hide the true

22 cause of decedent's demise to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to seek redress, all in violation of rights,
23
privileges, and immunities secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
24
25 Constitution.

26

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

27

28

COMPLAINT M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 8 of 13

TIURD CAUSE OF ACTION

2

(Monell- 42 U.S.C. section 1983)

3

28. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs 1 through

4 27 of this Complaint.
5
29 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that high ranking COUNTY OF
6
ALAMEDA officials, including high ranking police supervisors such as Defendant AHERN, DOES
7
8 51 through 100, and/or each of them, knew and/or reasonably should have known about repeated acts

9 of misconduct by Defendant Deputies AHLF and DOES 1-50, and/or each of them.

10

30. Despite having such notice, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that

II
Defendants AHERN, DOES 51-100, and/or each of them, approved, ratified, condoned, encouraged,
12
sought to cover up, and/or tacitly authorized the continuing pattern and practice of misconduct and/or
13

14 civil rights violations by said deputy sheriffs.

15

31. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that as a result of th

16 deliberate indifference, reckless and/or conscious disregard of the misconduct by Defendants AHLF
17
and DOES 1-50 and/or each of them, Defendant AHERN, DOES 51-100, and/or each of them
18
encouraged these officers to continue their course of misconduct and caused these officers' lack o
19
20 training, resulting in the violation of the Plaintiffs' rights as alleged herein.

21

32. Plaintiffs further allege Defendants AHERN, DOES 51-100, and/or each of them

22
were notice of Constitutional defects in their training of COUNTY OF ALAMEDA deputy sheriffs
23
including, but not limited to, avoiding repeated, prolonged exposure of the Taser ERD; avoidin
24
25 asphyxiation of subjects being restrained by deputy sheriffs, and avoiding blows to a subject's hea

26 during altercations absent justification.

27

33. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions and/or deliberate indifference by hig

28
ranking COUNTY OF ALAMEDA officials, including high ranking CCOUNTY OF ALAMED

COMPLAINT M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, eta!.

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 9 of 13

Sheriffs Department supervisors, Defendants AHERN, DOES 51-100, and each of them resulted i
2
the deprivation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights including, but not limited to, the following:
3

4

5

a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by the Fourth

6

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

7

b. The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, as guaranteed by the Eighth

8
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9
c. The right to a familial relationship, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
10

11

United States Constitution.

12

34. Said rights are substantive guarantees under the Fourth and/or Fourteenth

13 Amendments to the United States Constitution.
14
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
15

16

17

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Survival action: Violation of decedent's civil rights

18

42 U.S.C. section 1983)

(PlaintiffM.H., by and through his guardian Ad Litem, Michelle Henshaw, as decedent's successor-

19

in-interest)

20
35. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 34
21

22 of this Complaint.

23

36. The foregoing claim for relief arose in decedent's favor, and decedent would have

24 been the Plaintiff with respect to this claim ifhe had lived.
25
37. Defendants acted under color of law killing decedent without lawful justification and
26
subjecting decedent to excessive force and cruel and unusual punishment, thereby depriving Plaintiff
27
28 and the decedent of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to:

COMPLAINT M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 10 of 13

a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by the Fourth

2
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

3
b. The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, as guaranteed by the Eighth
4

5

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

6

c. The right to a familial relationship, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the

7

United States Constitution.

8
38. Said rights are substantive guarantees under the Fourth and/or Fourteenth
9
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
10

11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

12

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(C.C.P. Section 377.60 and 377.61)

13

Wrongful Death- Negligence

14

15

39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 38 of this

16 Complaint, except for any and all allegations of intentional, malicious, extreme, outrageous, wanton,
17
and oppressive conduct by defendants, and any and all allegations requesting punitive damages.
18
40. Defendants COUNTY, by and through its agents and employees, Defendant Deputy
19
20 Sheriffs AHLF, and DOES 1-SO's, negligent actions and/or negligent failure to act, as set forth

21 herein-above proximately caused the death of decedent MARTIN HARRISON, said plaintiffs father,
22 on August 16, 2010.
23
41. As an actual and proximate result of said defendants' negligence, and the death of
24
25 decedent, plaintiffs have sustained pecuniary loss resulting from the loss of comfort, society,
26 consortium, attention, services, and support of their respective husband and father, decedent, in an

27 amount according to proof at trial.
28

COMPLAINT M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et aL

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 11 of 13

42. As a further actual and proximate result of said defendant's negligence, plaintiff has
2 incurred funeral and burial expenses, in an amount according to proof at trial.
3
43. Pursuant to California C.C.P. Sections 377.60 and 377.61, plaintiffs have brought this
4
5 action, and claims damages from said defendants for the wrongful death of decedent, and the

6 resulting injuries and damages.

7

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

8
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9

(Violation of Civil Code Section 51.7)

(Against defendants AHLF and DOES 1-50)
10

II

44. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 43 of this

12 complaint.

13

45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the conduct of defendants

14
AHLF and DOES 1-50's, inclusive, as described herein, was motivated by racial prejudice against
15
plaintiffs' decedent. Plaintiffs' decedent is and was readily recognizable as African-American. In
16

17 engaging in such conduct, defendants violated plaintiffs' decedent's rights under California Civil

18 Code Section 51.7 to be free from violence, or intimidation by threat of violence committed against

19 him because ofhis race.
20
46. Under the provisions of California Civil Code Section 52(b), defendants are liable an
21
22 additional $25,000.00 for each violation of Civil Code Section 51.7, for punitive damages and for
23 reasonable attorney's fees.

24

47. As a proximate result of defendants' wrongful conduct, plaintiff suffered damages as

25
hereinafter set forth.
26
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.
27

28

COMPLAINT

II

M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

t

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 12 of 13

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

(Violation of Civil Code Section 52.1) (Against Defendants AHLF, and DOES 1-50)

3
48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 47 of this
4

5 Complaint.

6

49. The conduct of Defendants AHLF, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, as described herein, acting

7 in the course and scope of their employment for Defendant COUNTY, violated California Civil Code

8
Section 52.1, in that through the wrongful assault and battery and killing of plaintiffs decedent they
9
interfered with plaintiffs decedent's exercise and enjoyment of his civil rights.
10

II

50. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' violation of Civil Code Section 52.1,

12 decedent suffered violation of his constitutional rights, and suffered damages as set forth herein.

l3

51. Since this conduct occurred in the course and scope of their employment, defendant

14
COUNTY is therefore liable to plaintiffs pursuant to respondeat superior.
15
52. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and an award of their reasonable attorney's fees
16

17 pursuant to Civil Code Section 52.l(h).

18

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief, as hereinafter set forth.

19

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20

(Assault and Battery-Wrongful Death)

(Against defendants AHLF, and DOES 1-50)

21

53. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 52 of this
22

23 Complaint.

24

54. Defendants AHLF, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, placed plaintiffs' decedent in immediate

25 fear of death and severe bodily harm, and killed him by beating and him without just provocation or
26
cause.
27
55. These defendants' conduct was neither privileged nor justified under statute or common
28
law.

COMPLAINT

12

M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

f

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 13 of 13

JURY DEMAND

2

56. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial in this action.

3

PRAYER

4

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief, as follows:

5

1. For general damages in a sum of $20,000,000.00;

6

2. For special damages in a sum according to proof;

7

3. For punitive damages in a sum according to proof;

8

4.

For reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988;

9

5. For statutory civil penalties;

10

6.

For injunctive relief;

II

7.

For cost of suit herein incurred; and

12

8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

13

14

15 Dated: June 10, 2011
16

The Law Offices of John L. Burris

17

18
Attorney
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT

13

M.H. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, eta!.

 
 Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 25

1 JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq./ State Bar #69888 BENJAMIN NISENBAUM, Esq./ State Bar #222173
2 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
3 Oakland, California 94621 Telephone: (510) 839-5200
4 Facsimile: (510) 839-3882
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff M.H., a minor through his Guardian Ad Litem, Michelle Henshaw
6
MICHAEL J. HADDAD, Esq./ State Bar #189114 7 JULIA SHERWIN, Esq./State Bar #189268
GINA ALTOMARE, Esq./State Bar #273099 8 HADDAD & SHERWIN
505 Seventeenth Street 9 Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 452-5500 10 Facsimile: (510) 452-5510
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Joseph Harrison, Krystle Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr., and Tiffany Harrison
12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 M.H., a minor, through his Guardian Ad Litem,

)

Michelle Henshaw, JOSEPH HARRISON, KRYSTLE ) Case No. C11-2868 CW

16 HARRISON, MARTIN HARRISON, JR., and 17 TIFFANY HARRISON, all Individually and as Co-

) ) )

Successors in Interest of Decedent MARTIN

) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

18 HARRISON,

) FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND

) FOR JURY TRIAL

19
Plaintiffs,

) )

20

vs.

) )

21

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation;

) )

22 SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN, in his individual and )

official capacities; DEPUTIES MATTHEW AHLF, )

23 ALEJANDRO VALVERDE, JOSHUA SWETNAM, )

24

ROBERTO MARTINEZ, ZACHARY LITVINCHUK, RYAN MADIGAN, MICHAEL BARENO,

) ) )

25 FERNANDO ROJAS-CASTANEDA, SHAWN

)

SOBRERO, SOLOMON UNUBUN; MEGAN HAST, )

26 A.S.W.; CORIZON HEALTH, INC., a Delaware

)

27 corporation; HAROLD ORR, M.D.; ZELDA

) )

SANCHO, L.V.N.; and DOES 5-20, individually,

)

28 jointly and severally,

)

)

Defendants.

) )

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 2 of 25

1

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS and

2 HADDAD & SHERWIN, for their Second Amended Complaint against Defendants, state as

3
follows:
4

5

JURISDICTION

6

1. This is a civil rights wrongful death/survival action arising under Title 42 of the

7 United States Code, Sections 1983 and 1988, and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to

8 the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by Title 28 of the United

9 States Code, Sections 1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs further invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this

10 Court pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1367, to hear and decide claims

11 arising under state law. The amount in controversy herein, excluding interest and costs, exceeds the

12 minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court.

13

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

14

2. A substantial part of the events and/or omissions complained of herein occurred in

15 the County of Alameda, California, and this action is properly assigned to the Oakland or San

16 Francisco Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

17

PARTIES AND PROCEDURE

18

3. Minor Plaintiff M.H. is and was at all times herein mentioned the son of Decedent

19 MARTIN HARRISON and a resident of the State of California. He is being represented in the

20 instant matter by his mother and Guardian Ad Litem, Michelle Henshaw, pursuant to Federal Rule

21 of Civil Procedure 17(c). Minor Plaintiff M.H. brings these claims individually and as co-successor

22 in interest for Decedent MARTIN HARRISON.

23

4. Plaintiff JOSEPH HARRISON is the son of Decedent MARTIN HARRISON and a

24 resident of the State of California. Plaintiff JOSEPH HARRISON brings these claims individually

25 and as co-successor in interest for Decedent MARTIN HARRISON.

26

5. Plaintiff KRYSTLE HARRISON is the daughter of Decedent MARTIN HARRISON

27 and a resident of the State of California. Plaintiff KRYSTLE HARRISON brings these claims

28 individually and as co-successor in interest for Decedent MARTIN HARRISON.

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 3 of 25

1

6. Plaintiff MARTIN HARRISON, JR. is the son of Decedent MARTIN HARRISON

2 and a resident of the State of California. Plaintiff MARTIN HARRISON, JR. brings these claims

3 individually and as co-successor in interest for Decedent MARTIN HARRISON.

4

7. Plaintiff TIFFANY HARRISON is the daughter of Decedent MARTIN HARRISON

5 and a resident of the State of California. Plaintiff TIFFANY HARRISON brings these claims

6 individually and as co-successor in interest for Decedent MARTIN HARRISON.

7

8. Plaintiffs bring these claims pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections

8 377.20 et seq. and 377.60 et seq., which provide for survival and wrongful death actions. Plaintiffs

9 also bring their claims individually and on behalf of Decedent MARTIN HARRISON on the basis

10 of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the United States Constitution, and federal and state civil rights

11 law.

12

9. Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (“COUNTY”) is a municipal corporation,

13 duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, the

14 COUNTY operates the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department.

15

10. Defendant SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN (“AHERN”), at all times mentioned

16 herein, was employed by Defendant COUNTY as Sheriff for the COUNTY, and was acting within

17 the course and scope of that employment. He is being sued individually and in his official capacity

18 as Sheriff for the COUNTY.

19

11. Defendant DEPUTIES MATTHEW AHLF (“AHLF”), ALEJANDRO VALVERDE

20 (“VALVERDE”), JOSHUA SWETNAM (“SWETNAM”), ROBERTO MARTINEZ

21 (“MARTINEZ”), ZACHARY LITVINCHUK (“LITVINCHUK”), RYAN MADIGAN

22 (“MADIGAN”), MICHAEL BARENO (“BARENO”), FERNANDO ROJAS-CASTANEDA

23 (“ROJAS”), SHAWN SOBRERO (“SOBRERO”), SOLOMON UNUBUN (“UNUBUN”), were

24 each at all times herein mentioned a deputy sheriff employed by Defendant COUNTY OF

25 ALAMEDA, and each was acting within the course and scope of that employment.

26

12. In engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant Deputy Sheriffs acted under

27 the color of law and in the course and scope of their employment with the COUNTY.

28

13. Defendant MEGAN HAST, A.S.W, (“HAST”) was at all times herein mentioned a

registered associate social worker employed by Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA in the

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

3

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 4 of 25

1 Criminal Justice Mental Health Department of Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services.

2 Defendant HAST was called by a deputy to evaluate Decedent, and she failed to do so or to

3 summon medical care for Decedent despite the fact that he was exhibiting symptoms consistent

4 with severe alcohol withdrawal, a medical emergency requiring immediate transfer to a hospital for

5 inpatient emergency treatment.

6

14. Defendant HAST acted under the color of law and in the course and scope of her

7 employment with the COUNTY.

8

15. Defendant CORIZON HEALTH, INC. (“CORIZON”), previously/also known as

9 PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC., was at all times herein mentioned a Delaware corporation

10 licensed to do business in California. Defendant CORIZON HEALTH, INC. provided medical and

11 nursing care to prisoners and detainees in Alameda County jails, pursuant to contract with the

12 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. On information and belief, CORIZON and its employee and agent

13 Defendant HAROLD ORR, M.D., are responsible for making and enforcing policies, procedures,

14 and training related to the medical care of prisoners and detainees in Defendant COUNTY OF

15 ALAMEDA’s jails, including assessing inmates for possible alcohol withdrawal, safe detoxification

16 of inmates who are alcohol dependent, preventing alcohol withdrawal in inmates, and safely

17 handling inmates who are experiencing alcohol withdrawal.

18

16. Defendant HAROLD ORR, M.D., (“ORR”) was at all times herein mentioned a

19 physican licensed to practice medicine in the State of California, an employee and/or agent of

20 Defendant CORIZON, working as the medical director of Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’s

21 jails responsible for overseeing and providing medical care to prisoners and detainees, and was

22 acting within the course and scope of that employment. On information and belief, Defendant ORR

23 was ultimately responsible for CORIZON’s provision of medical care to inmates at the jails,

24 including assessing inmates for possible alcohol withdrawal, safe detoxification of inmates who are

25 alcohol dependent, preventing alcohol withdrawal in inmates, and safely handling inmates who are

26 experiencing alcohol withdrawal, and all CORIZON policies, procedures, and training related

27 thereto.

28

17. Defendant ZELDA SANCHO, L.V.N., (“SANCHO”) was at all times herein

mentioned employed by Defendant CORIZON as a licensed vocational nurse in Defendant

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

4

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 5 of 25

1 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’s jails, and was acting within the course and scope of that employment.

2 Defendant SANCHO performed the intake medical assessment on Decedent when he was booked

3 into jail, and failed to follow appropriate protocols for assessing, monitoring, and treating Decedent

4 for alcohol withdrawal, and for insuring follow-up for Decedent, who was placed or should have

5 been placed on alcohol withdrawal protocols.

6

18. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 5

7 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are

8 informed and believe and thereon allege that each Defendant so named is responsible in some

9 manner for the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs as set forth herein. Plaintiffs will

10 amend their complaint to state the names and capacities of DOES 5-20, inclusive, when they have

11 been ascertained.

12

19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants

13 was at all material times an agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, co-conspirator, and/or

14 alter ego of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the

15 course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege

16 that each of the Defendants herein gave consent, aid, and assistance to each of the remaining

17 Defendants, and ratified and/or authorized the acts or omissions of each Defendant as alleged

18 herein, except as may be hereinafter specifically alleged. At all material times, each Defendant was

19 jointly engaged in tortious activity and an integral participant in the conduct described herein,

20 resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and other harm.

21

20. The acts and omissions of all Doe Defendants as set forth herein were at all material

22 times pursuant to the actual customs, policies, practices and procedures of the COUNTY OF

23 ALAMEDA and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, and/or CORIZON.

24

21. At all material times, each Defendant acted under color of the laws, statutes,

25 ordinances, and regulations of the State of California.

26

22. Each Plaintiff timely and properly filed tort claims pursuant to California

27 Government Code sections 910 et seq., and this action is timely filed within all applicable statues of

28 limitation.

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

5

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 6 of 25

1

23. This complaint may be pled in the alternative pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

2 Procedure 8(d).

3

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

4

24. Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth

5 here.

6

25. On or about August 16, 2010, Decedent MARTIN HARRISON was beaten,

7 repeatedly struck, kicked, brutalized, repeatedly Tased, and improperly restrained by Defendant

8 Deputies MATTHEW AHLF, ALEJANDRO VALVERDE, JOSHUA SWETNAM, ROBERTO

9 MARTINEZ, ZACHARY LITVINCHUK, RYAN MADIGAN, MICHAEL BARENO,

10 FERNANDO ROJAS-CASTANEDA, SHAWN SOBRERO, SOLOMON UNUBUN, and other

11 unknown COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Defendant Sheriff Deputy DOES, in or near Housing Unit 33

12 at the Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, California.

13

26. Decedent MARTIN HARRISON came to be in the Santa Rita Jail following an

14 arrest on or about August 13, 2010 – three days before Defendant Deputies’ vicious, deadly beating

15 of him – on a warrant for a failure to appear. Decedent was a pretrial detainee. Decedent did not

16 have a history of violence or crime.

17

27. On information and belief, during or around the time of his admission to jail,

18 Decedent informed jail nursing staff, including but not limited to Defendant ZELDA SANCHO,

19 L.V.N., that he drank alcohol every day, his last drink was that day, and he had a history of alcohol

20 withdrawal. The nursing assessment notes provide in medical abbreviation: “with history of alcohol

21 withdrawal” and “CIWA.” On information and belief, CIWA stands for Clinical Institute

22 Withdrawal Assessment, the standard assessment and protocol for identifying people at risk for

23 severe alcohol withdrawal and providing a treatment protocol to detoxify the person safely.

24

28. On information and belief, Defendant SANCHO noted in a nursing assessment note

25 that Decedent was placed on a CIWA protocol, but Defendants never followed through with the

26 protocol. Defendants did not complete a CIWA screening questionnaire for Decedent, as required

27 by COUNTY and/or CORIZON policy, procedure, and training. Defendants did not check

28 Decedent’s blood alcohol levels or perform any laboratory tests on Decedent. Defendants did not

administer any medication to Decedent to prevent or treat alcohol withdrawal, including severe

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

6

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 7 of 25

1 alcohol withdrawal, a life-threatening medical emergency. No physician ever saw Decedent, and no

2 medical personnel ever performed a follow-up examination or provided any treatment to Decedent.

3

29. On or about August 15, 2010, Decedent issued a “sick call” slip requesting medical

4 care. Defendants did not follow up on Decedent’s request until two days later, after he had been

5 Tased and severely beaten and lay unconscious in the hospital.

6

30. In or around the early morning hours of August 16, 2010, Decedent was displaying

7 obvious signs of untreated severe alcohol withdrawal (also known as Delirium Tremens), a life-

8 threatening medical emergency. The signs and symptoms of severe alcohol withdrawal included,

9 for example, bizarre behavior, hallucinations, severe anxiety, disorientation to time and place, and

10 incoherent mumbling. At approximately 3:30 or 4:00 a.m., Defendant AHLF placed Decedent in an

11 isolation cell in Housing Unit 33 of Santa Rita Jail. Contrary to alcohol withdrawal protocols and to

12 jail policy, procedure, and training, Defendant AHLF failed to request that mental health or medical

13 personnel see Decedent. Decedent languished in the isolation cell for approximately twelve more

14 hours before anyone requested that he be evaluated.

15

31. At approximately 3:30 p.m. on or about August 16, 2010, a deputy left a telephone

16 message for jail mental health workers requesting that Decedent be seen for “bizarre behavior and

17 statements, not oriented to place, believed he was in his apartment and women there . . . mumbling

18 incoherently . . . Saw a nurse but not receiving any meds.”

19

32. Defendant MEGAN HAST, A.S.W., received the telephone message at

20 approximately 4:00 p.m. on or about August 16, 2010. HAST reviewed Decedent’s chart, saw that

21 he had a history of alcohol withdrawal and had been placed on CIWA, and recognized that his

22 symptoms were consistent with severe alcohol withdrawal, including Delirium Tremens, a life-

23 threatening medical emergency.

24

33. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY’s policy 13.01 on medical and health care

25 services, in effect at all material times mentioned herein, requires all correctional and other staff “to

26 respond to health-related situations within four minutes.” Contrary to this policy, neither Defendant

27 HAST, Defendant AHLF, nor any other jail or medical staff responded to Decedent’s medical

28 emergency within four minutes.

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 8 of 25

1

34. At approximately 4:30 p.m. on or about August 16, 2010, Defendant HAST called

2 Housing Unit 33 and learned that the deputy on duty there would be leaving in about thirty minutes.

3 Though HAST recognized that Decedent was displaying symptoms consistent with severe alcohol

4 withdrawal or Delirium Tremens, a medical emergency, she waited until 5:00 p.m. to go to see

5 Decedent. When HAST arrived at Housing Unit 33, there was no deputy present, and HAST did

6 not request another deputy to come so she could evaluate Decedent. Instead, HAST glanced inside

7 Decedent’s cell, saw him standing at the toilet, and left without ever speaking with him.

8

35. Defendant HAST waited one more hour, until approximately 6:00 p.m., to call

9 Housing Unit 33 about Decedent. This time, she spoke with Defendant AHLF, who informed her

10 that he had placed Decedent in the observation cell early that morning due to Decedent’s bizarre

11 behavior, being disoriented to time and place, and mumbling incoherently. Again, HAST

12 recognized the signs and symptoms as being consistent with alcohol withdrawal or Delirium

13 Tremens, but, again, she did not go to see Decedent. HAST also did not tell Defendant AHLF to

14 have another medical or mental health professional evaluate Decedent or inform him that Decedent

15 may be in a life-threatening medical emergency. HAST did not return to Housing Unit 33 to

16 evaluate Decedent until 7:00 p.m. – three hours after she first received the phone message – but by

17 that time, the Defendant Deputies had already Tased and brutalized Decedent.

18

36. Defendants SANCHO, HAST, and DOES 5-20 knew or must have known that

19 Decedent was chemically dependent on alcohol with serious medical needs, including the risk of

20 severe alcohol withdrawal with psychiatric impairments and Delirium Tremens, and Defendants

21 were deliberately indifferent to these serious medical needs. These defendants further knew or must

22 have known that if not treated, Decedent’s serious medical condition would worsen and cause

23 Decedent harm or death. Despite this knowledge, these Defendants, acting under the color of state

24 law in their individual and personal capacities, through their deliberate indifference, subjected, or

25 allowed others to subject, Decedent to delay and denial of access to medical and mental health care

26 and treatment, failed to provide competent medical and mental health care and treatment, failed to

27 place him on appropriate CIWA or alcohol withdrawal protocol, and failed to provide him access

28 and delivery to a hospital for the care and treatment for his life-threatening medical emergency.

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

8

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 9 of 25

1

37. After Defendants denied Decedent reasonable and necessary medical care for his

2 serious medical needs, Decedent reportedly broke a food tray in his cell, blocked the toilet, and

3 made a mess of his cell. Decedent wore socks without shoes at this time.

4

38. Defendant AHLF responded to the cell by himself. AHLF failed to follow his

5 training and COUNTY policy on how to handle a person with a mental disturbance. Rather than

6 calming and deescalating the situation with backup ready, as he was trained, AHLF entered the cell

7 alone, with a Taser in one hand and handcuffs in the other. As he was handcuffing Decedent,

8 AHLF claims Decedent “tensed,” so AHLF pushed Decedent. AHLF’s push was the first contact

9 between them and caused the situation with this obviously mentally impaired man to escalate.

10

39. After Defendant AHLF pushed Decedent all the way to the back of the cell, AHLF

11 states that Decedent turned and started slowly walking toward him. At that point, AHLF Tased

12 Decedent for two cycles, totaling ten seconds. After AHLF Tased him, Decedent ran for the door,

13 slipped, and fell on the wet floor. Then, AHLF pounced on top of Decedent.

14

40. From that point on, Defendant AHLF, followed by Deputies VALVERDE,

15 SWETNAM, MARTINEZ, LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO,

16 UNUBUN, and DOES, severely beat, punched, kicked, stomped, Tased, and brutalized Decedent,

17 including five separate Tasings totaling twenty-seven seconds. Each Defendant deputy used, or

18 caused the use of, extreme and/or deadly force against Decedent, causing severe injuries and deadly

19 trauma to Decedent, including but not limited to as described below. Decedent never struck or

20 kicked any deputy.

21

41. Defendants’ unjustified uses of force against Decedent on or about August 16, 2010

22 caused his death on or about August 18, 2010. Apart from a history of alcohol abuse, Decedent was

23 a healthy, 50-year-old man, who died with extreme physical injuries inflicted by the Defendants

24 herein, including but not limited to: a 16-inch by 9-inch bruise over the right lateral portion of his

25 neck, a 4-inch by 2.5-inch contusion on the right lateral side of his neck, a 12-inch by 17-inch bruise

26 of the right arm, a 2.5-inch by 0.5-inch bruise on the right palm; two linear abrasions, about 1.75

27 inches each, crossing each other to make a letter “z”, on the right upper arm; a 12-inch by 5-inch

28 contusion on the left upper arm; a 10-inch by 4-inch contusion on the left forearm; a 2.25-inch

contusion on the left palm; a 6-inch by 3.5-inch contusion on the right thigh; a 4-inch by 3.5-inch

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

9

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 10 of 25

1 contusion on the back right shoulder; a 5-inch by 4-inch contusion on Decedent’s back between the 2 12th rib and verterbral column; a 6-inch by 4-inch bruise on the left side of Decedent’s back; and a

3 5-inch by 4-inch bruise on the back of Decedent’s left shoulder; a 5-inch contusion of the right

4 clavicle; soft-tissue hemorrhaging of the upper chest; bi-lateral blood-tinged pleural effusions of

5 about 600 to 700 cc’s each (in what would ordinarily be the space around Decedent’s lungs); 800

6 cc’s of blood-tinged fluid in the peritoneal cavity; 150 cc’s of blood-tinged fluid in the pericardial

7 sac; a 2-inch area of hemorrhage in the left pleural cavity; a 6-inch by 0.5-inch area of hemorrhage

8 in the posterior-lateral surface of the left pleural cavity; an interrupted area of hemorrhaging in the

9 right pleural cavity covering an area of about 8 inches by 2 inches; very prominent soft-tissue

10 hemorrhaging in the in the posterior and posterior-lateral aspects of the right pleural cavity,

11 extending from rib 2 or 3 all the way down to rib 12.

12

42. In addition to the foregoing evidence of an unrestrained, out of control, violent

13 beating that killed Decedent, Defendant Deputies AHLF, VALVERDE, SWETNAM, MARTINEZ,

14 LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO, UNUBUN, and DOES also caused

15 further significant trauma to Decedent, all evidence of their homicide of Decedent: a 1.5-inch

16 hemorrhage around the right front side of Decedent’s larynx; a 2.25 by .75-inch area of hemorrhage

17 over the midline of Decedent’s neck; a .75-inch area of hemorrhage over the left side of the larynx;

18 a 3/8-inch area of hemorrhage over the left side of the hyoid bone, and numerous significant areas

19 of bruising and hemorrhaging on Decedent’s cranial vault.

20

43. Defendant Deputies AHLF, VALVERDE, SWETNAM, MARTINEZ,

21 LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO, UNUBUN, and DOES were integral

22 participants in brutalizing, beating, striking, kicking, Tasing, applying a spit mask and excessive

23 control holds, and unreasonably restraining Decedent MARTIN HARRISON. Further, each of

24 these Defendant deputies failed to intervene to stop, prevent, or report the use of excessive and

25 unreasonable force and restraint by other deputies.

26

44. Decedent MARTIN HARRISON was suffering from severe alcohol withdrawal, was

27 vastly outnumbered by deputies, and never posed a serious or immediate threat to any person.

28

45. Defendants’ conduct herein, including but not limited to their decision(s) to deny

Decedent necessary medical care, failure to provide competent medical care and treatment, failure

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

10

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 11 of 25

1 to place him on appropriate CIWA or alcohol withdrawal protocol, failure to provide him access

2 and delivery to a hospital for the care and treatment for his life-threatening medical emergency, the

3 manner in which they treated and incarcerated him, and their other acts and omissions under these

4 circumstances, was contrary to generally accepted reasonable jail and medical procedures and

5 standards, failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care, and contributed to the wrongful

6 death of Martin Harrison.

7

46. The type and amount of force Defendant deputies used against Decedent as

8 described herein, including multiple Taser shocks, multiple blows to Decedent’s head, neck, and

9 body, improper control holds, and restriction of Decedent’s airways, neck, and back areas,

10 amounted to the use of deadly force under the circumstances. The use of deadly force was not

11 justified or lawful under the circumstances.

12

47. Alternatively, or concurrently, Defendant deputies’ own excessive, unreasonable,

13 reckless, and provocative actions created a risk of harm to Decedent, created the situation in which

14 Defendant deputies used extreme force, and caused an escalation of events leading to Decedent’s

15 death.

16

48. Defendant deputies’ unreasonable restraint and use of excessive force against

17 Decedent was done at least in part because of Decedent’s untreated serious medical needs and/or

18 psychiatric condition.

19

49. Following Defendant deputies’ use of extreme and deadly force against Decedent,

20 Decedent was transferred to the jail infirmary, and then to the Valley Care Medical Center, with

21 anoxic brain damage after cardiac arrest. Decedent suffered severe acidosis, several more cardiac

22 arrests, and respiratory failure. Physicians withdrew life support on or about August 18, 2010, and

23 Decedent was pronounced dead at Valley Care Medical Center.

24

50. An autopsy performed by the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sheriff’s Department,

25 Coroner’s Bureau, on or about August 19, 2010, found injuries to Decedent previously described

26 herein, and also found that Decedent suffered shock, among other trauma, injuries, and sequelae.

27 The COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sheriff’s Department, Coroner’s Bureau determined that Decedent

28 died from Anoxic Encephalopathy due to cardiac arrest following excessive physical exertion,

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

11

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 12 of 25

1 multiple blunt injuries, and Tasering. The COUNTY OF ALAMEDA coroner’s investigator’s

2 report found that the manner of death could not be determined.

3

51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that asphyxiation of

4 individuals during restraint is well-documented and generally accepted such that law enforcement

5 agencies as a matter of routine train their peace officer personnel, such as Defendants AHLF,

6 VALVERDE, SWETNAM, MARTINEZ, LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS,

7 SOBRERO, UNUBUN and DOES, in avoiding asphyxiation of individuals during restraint.

8

52. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants were on notice that prolonged or continuous

9 exposure(s) to the Taser devices’s electrical discharge has been proven to cause severe injury and

10 death. In fact, Taser International, the manufacturer of the Taser, issued a warning bulletin to law

11 enforcement agencies published on or about August 28, 2006, and on other occasions, specifically

12 warning Taser users to avoid prolonged, continuous, extended, or repeated Taser applications

13 against people. The same warning bulletin specifically noted that in laboratory tests on anesthetized

14 pigs, repeated Taser exposure caused cessation of breathing during the exposure. Likewise, the

15 same warning bulletin specifically noted that people who displayed symptoms of exhaustion or an

16 alleged syndrome called ‘excited delirium,’ may be at risk of breathing impairment caused by

17 exposure to the Taser.

18

53. Defendant deputies grossly violated the training and standards for proper and safe

19 restraint of a person, and in using the Taser repeatedly, and in use of force, and in a prolonged

20 manner in their misconduct against Decedent. Plaintiffs also allege that the extreme physical

21 injuries to Decedent – especially the injuries to Decedent’s neck, lung cavity, torso, and head – are

22 all evidence of an extremely high degree of force, and of wanton and willful violations of

23 Decedent’s and Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights.

24

54. Decedent’s death was the result of all Defendants’ deliberately indifferent failure to

25 summon and/or provide medical for Decedent’s serious medical needs, and the unreasonable seizure

26 and restraint, use of excessive force, conduct without a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and

27 cruel and unusual punishment by Defendants AHLF, VALVERDE, SWETNAM, MARTINEZ,

28 LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO, UNUBUN and DOES.

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

12

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 13 of 25

1

55. Alternatively or concurrently, Decedent’s death was the proximate result of

2 Defendant COUNTY’S and SHERIFF AHERN’S failure to reasonably train their Deputy Sheriffs

3 in the proper and reasonable use of force, failure to implement and enforce generally accepted,

4 lawful policies and procedures at the jail, and allowing and/or ratifying excessive and unreasonable

5 force and restraint, and deliberate indifference to the serious medical/psychiatric needs of inmates.

6 These substantial failures reflect Defendant COUNTY’S policies implicitly ratifying and/or

7 authorizing the deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and the use of excessive and

8 unreasonable force and restraint by its Deputy Sheriffs and the failure to reasonably train, instruct,

9 monitor, supervise, investigate, and discipline deputy sheriffs employed by Defendant COUNTY in

10 the use of force.

11

56. Alternatively or concurrently, Decedent’s death was the proximate result of

12 Defendant CORIZON and ORR’S failure to reasonably train their medical and mental healthcare

13 staff in the proper and reasonable care of alcohol addicted, mentally ill, and/or emotionally

14 disturbed inmates, failure to implement and enforce generally accepted, lawful policies and

15 procedures at the jail, and deliberate indifference to the serious medical/psychiatric needs of

16 inmates. These substantial failures reflect Defendant CORIZON’S policies implicitly ratifying

17 and/or authorizing the deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by its medical and mental

18 healthcare staff and the failure to reasonably train, instruct, monitor, supervise, investigate, and

19 discipline medical and mental healthcare staff employed by Defendant CORIZON in the handling

20 of alcohol addicted, mentally ill, and/or emotionally disturbed inmates.

21

57. At all material times, and alternatively, the actions and omissions of each Defendant

22 were intentional, wanton, and/or willful, conscience-shocking, reckless, malicious, deliberately

23 indifferent to Decedent’s and Plaintiffs’ rights, done with actual malice, grossly negligent,

24 negligent, and objectively unreasonable. The killing of Decedent MARTIN HARRISON described

25 herein was brutal, malicious, and done without just provocation or cause, proximately causing

26 Plaintiffs’ injuries and resulting damages.

27

58. As a direct and proximate result of each Defendant’s acts and/or omissions as set

28 forth above, Plaintiffs sustained the following injuries and damages, past and future, among others:

a. Wrongful death of MARTIN HARRISON;

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

13

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 14 of 25

1
b. Hospital and medical expenses;
2

3

c. Coroner’s fees, funeral and burial expenses;

4

d. Loss of support and familial relationships, including loss of love,

5

companionship, comfort, affection, society, services, solace, and moral

support;

6
e. Loss of economic support;
7

8

f. Violation of constitutional rights;

9

g. Emotional distress;

10

h. MARTIN HARRISON’s loss of life, pursuant to federal civil rights law;

11
i. MARTIN HARRISON’s conscious pain, suffering, and disfigurement,

12

pursuant to federal civil rights law;

13

j. All damages and penalties recoverable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988,

14

and as otherwise allowed under California and United States statutes, codes,

and common law.

15

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

16

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

17

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AHLF, VALVERDE, SWETNAM,

MARTINEZ, LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO, UNUBUN,

18

SANCHO, HAST, AND DOES 5-20

19

59.

20
here.
21

60.
22

Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth By the actions and omissions described above, Defendants AHLF, VALVERDE,

23 SWETNAM, MARTINEZ, LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO,

24 UNUBUN, SANCHO, HAST, and DOES 5-20 violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, depriving Plaintiffs of

25
the following clearly established and well-settled constitutional rights protected by the First, Fourth,

26
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution:
27

28

a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as secured by

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

14

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 15 of 25

1

b. The right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force and restraint in

the course of search and seizure as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth

2

Amendments;

3

c. The right to be free from unlawful conscience-shocking force as secured by

4

the Fourteenth Amendment;

5
d. The right to be free from deliberate indifference to Decedent’s serious

6

medical needs while in custody as a pretrial detainee as secured by the

Fourteenth Amendment; and
7

8

e. The right to be free from wrongful government interference with familial

relationships and Plaintiffs’ right to companionship, society, and support of

9

each other, as secured by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and

as secured by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.20 et seq. and

10

377.60 et seq.

11
61. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to their wrongful conduct, depriving Plaintiffs of
12
rights described herein, knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and reckless disregard for
13

14 whether the rights and safety of Plaintiffs (individually and on behalf of MARTIN HARRISON)

15 and others would be violated by their acts and/or omissions.

16

62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as set forth

17
above, Plaintiffs sustained injuries and damages as set forth above at paragraph 58.
18

63. The conduct of Defendants AHLF, VALVERDE, SWETNAM, MARTINEZ,
19

20 LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO, UNUBUN, SANCHO, HAST, and

21 DOES 5-20 entitles Plaintiffs to punitive damages and penalties allowable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

22
and California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.20 et seq., and other state and federal law. Plaintiffs

23
do not seek punitive damages against municipal defendants.
24

25

64. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. §

26 1988 and applicable California codes and laws.

27

28

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

15

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 16 of 25

1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Monell - 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

2

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, AHERN,

3

CORIZON, ORR, AND DOES 5-20

4

65. Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth

5
here.
6
66. The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants AHLF, VALVERDE,
7
8 SWETNAM, MARTINEZ, LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO,

9 UNUBUN, SANCHO, HAST, and DOES 5-20, as well as other officers employed by or acting on

10 behalf of the Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and/or CORIZON, on information and belief,
11
were pursuant to the following customs, policies, practices, and/or procedures of the COUNTY OF
12
ALAMEDA and/or CORIZON, stated in the alternative, which were directed, encouraged, allowed,
13
14 and/or ratified by policymaking officers for the COUNTY and its Sheriff’s Department, and/or

15 CORIZON:

16

a. To use or tolerate the use of excessive and/or unjustified force;

17
b. To use or tolerate the use of unlawful deadly force;
18

c. To engage in or tolerate unreasonable seizures and restraints;
19

20

d. To engage in or tolerate the improper and dangerous misuse of the Taser;

21

e. To fail to institute, require, and enforce proper and adequate training,

supervision, policies, and procedures concerning seizures and the use of
22
control holds and restraint techniques, including avoiding asphyxiation of

23

subjects being restrained by deputy sheriffs and avoiding blows to a subject’s

head and/or neck during altercations absent justification;

24

25

f. To fail to institute, require, and enforce proper and adequate training,

supervision, policies, and procedures concerning the Taser;

26

g. To fail to use appropriate and generally accepted law enforcement procedures

27

for handling mentally ill and/or emotionally disturbed persons;

28
h. To fail to institute, require, and enforce proper and adequate training, supervision, policies, and procedures concerning handling mentally ill and/or emotionally disturbed persons;

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

16

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 17 of 25

1

i. To deny inmates at the COUNTY’s jail access to appropriate, competent, and

2

necessary care for serious medical and psychiatric needs;

3

j. To fail to institute proper procedures for prevention and treatment of severe

4

alcohol withdrawal, to coordinate inmate assessment, placement, CIWA

5

decisions, and care with the jail physicians and nursing staff, jail mental

health staff, and jail corrections staff;

6

j. To fail to institute, require, and enforce proper and adequate training,

7

supervision, policies, and procedures concerning handling alcohol addicted,

8

mentally ill and/or emotionally disturbed inmates at the County Jail;

9

k. To cover up violations of constitutional rights by any or all of the following:

10

i.

By failing to properly investigate and/or evaluate complaints or

11

incidents of excessive and unreasonable force, unlawful seizures,

and/or handling of mentally ill and/or emotionally disturbed persons;

12

ii.

By ignoring and/or failing to properly and adequately investigate

13

and/or investigate and discipline unconstitutional or unlawful law

14

enforcement activity; and

15

iii.

By allowing, tolerating, and/or encouraging law enforcement officers

to: fail to file complete and accurate reports; file false reports; make

16

false statements; intimidate, bias and/or “coach” witnesses to give

17

false information and/or to attempt to bolster officers’ stories; and/or

obstruct or interfere with investigations of unconstitutional or

18

unlawful law enforcement conduct by withholding and/or concealing

material information;
19

20

l.

To allow, tolerate, and/or encourage a “code of silence” among law

enforcement officers and sheriff’s department personnel, whereby an officer

21

or member of the sheriff’s department does not provide adverse information

against a fellow officer or member of the department; and
22

23

m. To use or tolerate inadequate, deficient, and improper procedures for

handling, investigating, and reviewing complaints of officer misconduct,

24

including claims made under California Government Code §§ 910 et seq.

25
67. Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, AHERN, CORIZON, ORR, and DOES 5-20
26
failed to properly hire, train, instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate, investigate, and discipline
27
28 Defendants AHLF, VALVERDE, SWETNAM, MARTINEZ, LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN,

BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO, UNUBUN, SANCHO, HAST, and DOES 5-20, and other

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

17

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 18 of 25

1 COUNTY, Sheriff’s Department, and CORIZON personnel, with deliberate indifference to
2 Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, which were thereby violated as described above.
3
68. The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants AHLF, VALVERDE,
4
5 SWETNAM, MARTINEZ, LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO,
6 UNUBUN, SANCHO, HAST, and DOES 5-20 and other Sheriff’s Department personnel, as
7 described above, were approved, tolerated, and/or ratified by policymaking officers for the
8
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and its Sheriff’s Department, including Defendant SHERIFF AHERN,
9
and by CORIZON and DR. ORR. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the
10
11 details of this incident have been revealed to the authorized policymakers within the COUNTY OF
12 ALAMEDA, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, and CORIZON, and that such
13 policymakers have direct knowledge of the fact that the death of MARTIN HARRISON was not
14
justified, but rather represented an unconstitutional display of unreasonable, excessive and deadly
15
force, cruel and unusual punishment, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
16
17 Notwithstanding this knowledge, the authorized policymakers within the COUNTY, its Sheriff’s
18 Department, and CORIZON have approved of AHLF, VALVERDE, SWETNAM, MARTINEZ,
19 LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO, UNUBUN, SANCHO, HAST and
20
DOES 5-20’s conduct and decisions in this matter, and have made a deliberate choice to endorse
21
such conduct and decisions, and the basis for them, that resulted in the death of MARTIN
22
23 HARRISON. By so doing, the authorized policymakers within the COUNTY and its Sheriff’s
24 Department have shown affirmative agreement with the individual Defendants’ actions and have
25
ratified the unconstitutional acts of the individual Defendants.
26
69. The aforementioned customs, policies, practices, and procedures; the failures to
27
28 properly and adequately hire, train, instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate, investigate, and
discipline; and the unconstitutional orders, approvals, ratification, and toleration of wrongful

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

18

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 19 of 25

1 conduct of Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, AHERN, ORR, and DOES 5-20 were a moving

2 force and/or a proximate cause of the deprivations of Plaintiffs’ clearly established and well-settled

3
constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as more fully set forth above in paragraph 58.
4

5

70. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to their wrongful conduct, depriving Plaintiffs of

6 rights described herein, knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and reckless disregard for

7 whether the rights and safety of Plaintiffs and others would be violated by their acts and/or

8
omissions.
9
71.
10

As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional actions, omissions, customs,

11 policies, practices, and procedures of Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, AHERN, ORR, and

12 DOES 5-20 as described above, Plaintiffs sustained serious and permanent injuries and are entitled

13 to damages, penalties, costs, and attorneys fees as set forth above in paragraphs 61-64, and punitive

14
damages against Defendants SHERIFF AHERN, ORR, and DOES 5-20 in their individual
15
capacities.
16

17

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Civil Code § 52.1)

18

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

19

72.

20
here.
21

73.
22

Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth By their acts, omissions, customs, and policies, each Defendant acting in

23 concert/conspiracy, as described above, and with threats, intimidation, and/or coercion, violated

24 Plaintiffs’ rights under California Civil Code § 52.1 and the following clearly established rights

25
under the United States Constitution and California Constitution:

26

a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as secured by

27

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;

28
b. The right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force and restraint in the course of search and seizure as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

19

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 20 of 25

1

c. The right to be free from unlawful conscience-shocking force as secured by

2

the Fourteenth Amendment;

3

d. The right to be free from deliberate indifference to Decedent’s serious

4

medical needs while in custody as a pretrial detainee as secured by the

5

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by California

Constitution, Article 1, Sections 7 and 17; and

6

e. The right to be free from wrongful government interference with familial

7

relationships and Plaintiffs’ right to companionship, society, and support of

8

each other, as secured by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and

as secured by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.20 et seq. and

9

377.60 et seq.

10

f. The right to enjoy and defend life and liberty; acquire, possess, and protect

11

property; and pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy, as secured by

the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1;

12

g. The right to life, liberty, and property and not to be deprived of those without

13

due process of law, as secured by the California Constitution, Article 1,

14

Section 7;

15

h. The right to be free from unlawful and unreasonable seizure of one’s person,

including the right to be free from unreasonable or excessive deadly force, as

16

secured by the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 13;

17

i. The right to protection from bodily restraint, harm, or personal insult, as

18

secured by California Civil Code § 43; and

19

j. The right to medical care as required by California Government Code §

20

845.6.

21

74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of California Civil Code §

22
52.1 and of Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States and California Constitutions, Plaintiffs
23
sustained injuries and damages, and against each and every Defendant are entitled to relief as set
24
25 forth above at paragraphs 61-64, and punitive damages against all individual Defendants, including

26 all damages allowed by California Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1 and California law, not limited to

27 costs attorneys fees, and civil penalties.
28

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

20

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 21 of 25

1

2

3
75.
4
5 here.

6

76.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence)
ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth
At all times, each Defendant owed Plaintiffs the duty to act with due care in the

7 execution and enforcement of any right, law, or legal obligation.
8
77. At all times, each Defendant owed Plaintiffs the duty to act with reasonable care.
9
78. These general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to Plaintiffs by all
10
11 Defendants include but are not limited to the following specific obligations:

12

a. To provide, or cause to be provided, prompt and appropriate medical care for

Decedent;
13

14

b. To summon necessary and appropriate medical care for Decedent;

15

c. To refrain from using excessive and/or unreasonable force against Decedent;

16

d. To refrain from unreasonably creating the situation where force, including

17

but not limited to deadly force, is used;

18

e. To refrain from unreasonably creating danger or increasing Decedent’s risk

of harm;
19

20

f. To use generally accepted law enforcement procedures and tactics that are

reasonable and appropriate for Decedent’s status as an alcohol addicted,

21

mentally ill and/or emotionally disturbed person with serious medical needs;

22
g. To refrain from abusing their authority granted them by law;

23

h. To refrain from violating Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by the United States

24

and California Constitutions, as set forth above, and as otherwise protected

25

by law.

26

79. Additionally, these general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to Plaintiffs

27 by Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, SHERIFF AHERN, CORIZON, DR. ORR, and DOES
28
5-20 include but are not limited to the following specific obligations:

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 22 of 25

1

a. To properly and reasonably hire, supervise, train, retain, investigate, monitor,

evaluate, and discipline each person (i) who was responsible for providing

2

medical and mental health care for Decedent, (ii) who was responsible for the

3

safe and appropriate jail custody of Decedent, (iii) who denied Decedent

medical attention or access to medical care and treatment, and/or (iv) who

4

failed to summon necessary and appropriate medical care for Decedent;

5
b. To properly and adequately hire, investigate, train, supervise, monitor,

6

evaluate, and discipline their employees, agents, and/or law enforcement

officers to ensure that those employees/agents/officers act at all times in the

7

public interest and in conformance with the law;

8
c. To institute and enforce proper procedures and training for prevention and

9

treatment of severe alcohol withdrawal, to coordinate inmate assessment,

placement, CIWA decisions, and care with the jail physicians and nursing

10

staff, jail mental health staff, and jail corrections staff;

11
d. To make, enforce, and at all times act in conformance with policies and

12

customs that are lawful and protective of individual rights, including

Plaintiffs’;
13

14

e. To refrain from making, enforcing, and/or tolerating the wrongful policies

and customs set forth above at paragraph 66.

15

80. Defendants, through their acts and omissions, breached each and every one of the
16

17 aforementioned duties owed to Plaintiffs.

18

81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs sustained

19 injuries and damages, and against each and every Defendant are entitled to relief as set forth above

20
at paragraphs 61-64, and punitive damages against all individual Defendants.
21

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
(Assault and Battery)

23

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AHLF, VALVERDE, SWETNAM,

MARTINEZ, LITVINCHUK, MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO, UNUBUN,

24

DOES 5-20, AND ALAMEDA COUNTY

25

82.

26
here.
27

83.
28

Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth Defendants AHLF, VALVERDE, SWETNAM, MARTINEZ, LITVINCHUK,

MADIGAN, BARENO, ROJAS, SOBRERO, UNUBUN and DOES 5-20, inclusive, placed

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

22

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 23 of 25

1 Plaintiffs’ Decedent in immediate fear of death and severe bodily harm, and killed him by beating

2 and him without just provocation or cause, constituting assault and battery.
3
84. These defendants’ conduct was neither privileged nor justified under statute or
4
5 common law.

6

85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ assault and battery of Plaintiffs’

7 Decedent, Plaintiffs sustained injuries and damages and are entitled to relief as asset forth above at

8
paragraphs 61-64, and punitive damages against all individual Defendants in their individual
9
capacities.
10

11

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Government Code § 845.6)

12

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AHLF, HAST, DOES 5-20, ALAMEDA

COUNTY AND CORIZON
13

14

86. Plaintiffs reallege each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth

15 here.

16

87. Defendants AHLF, HAST, and DOES 5-20 knew or had reason to know that

17
Decedent was in need of immediate and higher level medical care, treatment, observation and
18

monitoring, including being placed on appropriate CIWA or alcohol withdrawal protocol, and being
19

20 transferred for emergency inpatient hospitalization once Decedent was in severe alcohol

21 withdrawal, and each failed to take reasonable action to summon and/or to provide him access to
22
such medical care and treatment. Each such individual defendant, employed by and acting within
23
the course and scope of his/her employment with Defendant COUNTY, knowing and/or having
24
25 reason to know this, failed to take reasonable action to summon and/or provide Decedent access to

26 such care and treatment in violation of California Government Code § 845.6.

27

88. As legal cause of the aforementioned acts of ALL DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs were

28
injured as set forth above, and their losses entitle them to all damages allowable under California

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 24 of 25

1 law. Plaintiffs sustained serious and permanent injuries and are entitled to damages, penalties,

2 costs, and attorney fees under California law as set forth in paragraphs 61-64, above.

3

RELIEF REQUESTED

4

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief against each and every

5

Defendant herein, jointly and severally:

6

a. Compensatory and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof and

7

which is fair, just, and reasonable;

8
b. Punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law in an amount

9

according to proof and which is fair, just, and reasonable;

10

c. All other damages, penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys fees as allowed by

11

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.20 et

seq., 377.60 et seq., and 1021.5; California Civil Code §§ 52 et seq., 52.1;

12

and as otherwise may be allowed by California and/or federal law;

13

d. Declaratory and injunctive relief, including but not limited to the following:

14
i. An order prohibiting Defendants and their sheriff’s deputies from

15

unlawfully interfering with the rights of Plaintiffs and others to be

free from unreasonable seizures and restraints and excessive and

16

unreasonable force;

17
ii. An order requiring Defendants to institute and enforce appropriate

18

and lawful policies and procedures for the safe use of Tasers;

19

iii. An order requiring Defendants to institute and enforce appropriate

20

and lawful policies and procedures for handling addicted, mentally

ill and/or emotionally disturbed persons, and/or persons with serious

21

medical needs;

22

iv. An order prohibiting Defendants and their sheriff’s deputies from

23

engaging in the “code of silence” as may be supported by the

evidence in this case;

24

v. An order requiring Defendants to train all sheriff’s deputies
25
concerning generally accepted and proper tactics and procedures for

26

the use of deadly force, the use of Tasers, and the handling of

addicted, mentally ill and/or emotionally disturbed persons, and/or

27

persons with serious medical needs and this Court’s orders

28

concerning the issues raised in injunctive relief requests i-iv, above;

vi. An order requiring Defendants to train all medical and mental health professionals concerning generally accepted and proper tactics and

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

24

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 46 Filed 11/19/12 Page 25 of 25

1

procedures for the care and treatment of chemically dependent,

mentally ill and/or emotionally disturbed persons and/or persons

2

with serious medical needs and this Court’s order concerning the

3

issues raised in injunctive relief request iii, above.

4

e. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

5

6

JURY DEMAND

7

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial in this action.

8
Dated: November 19, 2012
9

THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

10

/s/ John L. Burris
11
JOHN L. BURRIS

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff

13

14 Dated: November 19, 2012
15

HADDAD & SHERWIN

16

/s/ Michael J. Haddad

17

MICHAEL J. HADDAD

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C11-2868 CW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

25

 
 1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
M.H., et al., 7
Plaintiffs, 8
v. 9
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., 10
Defendants. 11

Case No. 11-cv-02868-JST
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: ECF Nos. 121, 133, 134

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Table of Contents

United States District Court Northern District of California

2

I. 3

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

II. Procedural History................................................................................................................. 1

4 III. Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................................ 1

5 IV. Facts ...................................................................................................................................... 2

6

A. Arrest and Medical Screening ................................................................................... 2

7

B. Transfer to Santa Rita Jail ......................................................................................... 7

C. Transfer to Isolation Cell........................................................................................... 8 8
D. Policies and Training Applicable to Deputy Ahlf Concerning Medical Care........... 9

9

E. Referral to CJMH .................................................................................................... 11

10

F. Altercation with Deputy Ahlf.................................................................................. 14

11

G. Arrival of the Remaining Sheriff’s Deputies .......................................................... 17

12 13 14 V.

H. Transfer to Hospital and Death ............................................................................... 21 I. Coroner’s Report ..................................................................................................... 22 J. Expert Opinions....................................................................................................... 23 Evidentiary Objections ........................................................................................................ 29

15 VI. Legal Standard..................................................................................................................... 29

16 VII. Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 30

17

A. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs — Individual Defendants........ 30

B. Monell Claims ......................................................................................................... 37

18

C. Supervisory Liability — Dr. Orr ............................................................................. 49

19

D. Excessive Force ....................................................................................................... 50

20

E. Loss of Familial Association................................................................................... 58

21

F. Bane Act, California Civil Code Section 52.1 ........................................................ 60

G. Negligence, Assault, and Battery as to the County Defendants .............................. 61 22
H. Negligence as to Nurse Sancho and the Corizon Defendants ................................. 62

23

I. California Government Code Section 845.6 ........................................................... 63

24 VIII. Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 65

25

26

27

28 i

1 I. INTRODUCTION

2

This case arises out of the death of Martin Harrison while he was in the custody of the

3 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Plaintiffs Joseph, Krystle, Martin, Jr., and Tiffany Harrison are

4 Mr. Harrison’s adult children. They assert claims for violation of Mr. Harrison’s civil rights

5 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California’s Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, as well as

6 common law claims against: the County of Alameda; Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern in his official

7 capacity; Sheriff’s Deputies Matthew Ahlf, Alejandro Valverde, Joshua Swetnam, Roberto

8 Martinez, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Michael Bareno, Fernando Rojas-Castaneda,

9 Shawn Sobrero, and Solomon Unubun; Megan Hast, A.S.W., a social worker employed by

10 Criminal Justice Mental Health (“CJMH”), an Alameda County employer; Corizon Health, Inc.

11 (formerly Prison Health Services, Inc.); Corizon Health’s Regional Medical Director Dr. Harold

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Orr; and Corizon Health employee Nurse Zelda Sancho.

13

Before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by the County Defendants,

14 County MSJ, ECF No. 121, Nurse Sancho, Sancho MSJ, ECF No. 133, and the remaining Corizon

15 Health Defendants, Corizon MSJ, ECF No. 134.

16 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17

Harrison’s minor son, M.H., filed this action on June 10, 2011. Through two amendments,

18 M.H. added Harrison’s two adult sons and two adult daughters as Plaintiffs, as well as Corizon

19 Health, Dr. Orr, and Nurse Sancho as Defendants. The operative Second Amended Complaint

20 was filed November 19, 2012. Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”), ECF No. 46. M.H. settled his

21 claims against all Defendants, and the Court approved the minor’s compromise on October 4,

22 2013. ECF No. 109. On November 7, 2013, all remaining Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their

23 claims against Sheriff Ahern in his individual capacity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24 41(a)(1)(a)(ii). ECF No. 117.

25 III. JURISDICTION

26

This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims arising under 42 U.S.C.

27 § 1983 and 1988, and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

28

1

United States District Court Northern District of California

IV. FACTS 1
Many of the facts in this case are disputed by the parties. In reviewing the facts here, the 2
Court will note where facts are disputed. In all other instances, the facts contained herein are 3
undisputed. 4
A. Arrest and Medical Screening 5
Decedent Martin Harrison was stopped on August 13, 2010, at 3:55 p.m. for jaywalking by 6
the Oakland Police Department. The officer arrested Harrison pursuant to a bench warrant for 7
failure to appear at trial for violation of California Vehicular Code § 23152(a) (driving under the 8
influence of alcohol). Ly Decl. ISO County MSJ, ECF No. 125, Ex. A at 4. The arrest report 9
states Harrison weighed 140 pounds and was 6’0” tall. Id. He was one day shy of his fiftieth 10
birthday. Id. 11
1. Medical Screening by Nurse Sancho 12
Harrison was taken to the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in Oakland, California. 13
Defendant Sancho, a licensed vocational nurse employed by Defendant Corizon Health (then 14
known as Prison Health Services, Inc.), performed a medical intake assessment, which she 15
memorialized on a standardized intake assessment form. Sherwin Decl. ISO County MSJ Opp., 16
ECF No. 149, Ex. 9, Sancho Dep., 54:10–12; Ly Decl., Ex. A at 2. The form was completed at 17
5:00 p.m. on August 13. The form contained a standardized set of questions followed by space for 18
a narrative description of the inmate’s condition. Harrison’s form indicated that his weight was 19
142 pounds, and that he was between 5’4” and 5’6” tall. Sancho recorded those measurements 20
after weighing Harrison, although she did not measure his height. Sancho Dep. 67:10–24. Sancho 21
described Harrison as a “medium-sized guy.” Id. She recorded his vital signs as “within normal 22
levels.” Sancho Dep. 66:7–11. 23
Sancho testified that when she examined Harrison, his demeanor and outward physical 24
symptoms were unremarkable. He walked with a “steady gait,” stood straight, was coherent, alert, 25
and oriented, and calm and quiet. Id. 69:15–23. 26
Sancho testified that Harrison told her he had two bottles of beer that afternoon, and that 27
Harrison told her “three to four times” that he did not have problems with alcohol withdrawal in 28
2

1 the past. Id. 70:1–6. Sancho testified that she asked Harrison what size the bottles were, but

2 forgot to record it on the form. Id. 71:5–7. She also testified that she understood Harrison to have

3 told her he drank two bottles of beer every day. Id. 72:14–15. When she examined Harrison, he

4 smelled of alcohol and his face was “maybe red, but not puffy.” Id. 73:22–24.

5

Sancho wrote on the form that Harrison drinks every day, and that his last drink was on the

6 day he was arrested. Id. 58:20–22. The form does not state that Harrison smelled of alcohol, what

7 type of alcohol Harrison drank, the amount of daily consumption, the time or amount of

8 Harrison’s last drink, or how many years Harrison had been drinking. Id. 58:24–59:12.

9

Sancho also wrote on the form “w/hx of ETOH w/d,” which means “with history of

10 alcohol withdrawal.” Id. 79:23–80:3. Finally, she wrote “CIWA,” which stands for “Clinical

11 Institute Withdrawal Assessment,” a protocol used to evaluate and treat those at risk for severe

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 alcohol withdrawal. Id. 79:23–80:3; 86:5–87:5. Sancho testified that she wrote both phrases in

13 anticipation because Harrison told her he drank every day, and that she then crossed them out

14 when he assured her he did not have a history of alcohol withdrawal. Id. 80:12–16. Above the

15 CIWA notation is the word “error,” which Sancho testified she wrote pursuant to Corizon Health

16 training to indicate she crossed the notation out on purpose. Id. 82:13–83:17. Sancho testified

17 that she did not alter the form after her initial screening. Id. 61:9–11.

18

Sancho spent “three to 10 minutes, or less than 10 minutes” with Harrison. Id. 60:14. She

19 classified Harrison as medical level 3, which means he would not receive any medical follow-up

20 because the nurse found “no medical problem.” Id. 65:5–22. Harrison was assigned to the general

21 jail population. Id. Had Sancho concluded instead that Harrison was at risk of alcohol

22 withdrawal, she would have classified him as level 1, which would have resulted in “prompt

23 attention within 24 hours.” Id. 66:1–4. The CIWA protocol called for an examination by a

24 physician within twenty-four hours, and examinations by nurses every eight hours. Id. 87:3–6. If

25 a patient on CIWA protocol became symptomatic, the patient might also receive fluids and one or

26 more medications as appropriate, including thiamine, benzodiazepines, opioids, and multivitamins

27 as part of the treatment protocol. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 15, Orr. PMK Dep. 43:9–44:7; Sherwin

28 Decl., Ex. 17 (CIWA Form and Orders). 3

1

In a declaration attached to her motion for summary judgment, Nurse Sancho states that

2 she explained to Harrison that he could obtain a “slip/sick call form” and notify a deputy once

3 transferred to general population if he needed any medical attention. Sancho Decl. ISO Sancho

4 MSJ, ECF No. 133-1 ¶ 4. The declaration also states that Sancho had already crossed out the

5 notations for “with history of alcohol withdrawal” and “CIWA,” and written the word “error”

6 above the notations at the time that Sancho and Harrison signed the intake form. Id. ¶ 11. Sancho

7 declares that she communicated her crossing out of the notations orally to Harrison as well. Id.

8 Sancho also declares: “I have used a CIWA form for a number of arrestees, but they had exhibited

9 many signs and symptoms of intoxication. Because Mr. Harrison was not intoxicated when I

10 performed his intake and showed no indicators of being at risk of alcohol withdrawal, I did not

11 initiate the CIWA protocol.” Id. ¶ 14. In particular, Sancho declares that she believed Harrison

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 was truthful with her when he told her he did not have a history of problems with alcohol

13 withdrawal. Id. ¶ 15.

14

2. Alcohol Withdrawal Training

15

Sancho had been trained to identify the risk factors for alcohol withdrawal, including in

16 January 2010. Sancho Dep. 11:5–13:20. The manual accompanying the January 2010 training, a

17 one-hour continuing education program, states that Stage I of alcohol withdrawal begins six to

18 eight hours after the last drink, with “tremulousness.” Sherwin Decl., Ex. 24 at COR 1967.

19 Nausea, anxiety, and insomnia may also accompany Stage I. Most inmates recover without

20 additional incident within twenty-four to thirty-six hours. Id. at COR 1968. However, according

21 to the training manual, approximately twenty-five percent of Stage I patients progress to more

22 significant stages. Stage II begins eight to forty-eight hours after the last drink. Stage II involves

23 hallucinations that may last one to six days. Id. Stage III begins twelve to forty-eight hours after

24 the last drink, and involves seizures. Stage IV begins forty-eight to seventy-two hours after the

25 last drink. Stage IV is the most serious manifestation of alcohol withdrawal, and is known as

26 Delirium Tremens (DTs). DTs “is a true medical emergency” that presents in one to five percent

27 of patients. Id. The onset of DTs usually occurs three to ten days after the last drink. Symptoms

28 include hypertension, tachycardia, diaphoresis, fever, dilated pupils, and tremulousness. Id. The 4

1 “hallmark” of DTs is “profound confusion and disorientation.” Id. at COR 1968–69. The

2 hallucinations tend to be “persecutory,” and patients “may think that members of the medical staff

3 are assailants.” Id. at COR 1969. The training goes on to explain how and why nurses should

4 institute a CIWA protocol. The training document states:

5

Inmate patients should be evaluated for use and/or dependence on

alcohol and other drugs during the intake receiving screening

6

process. Inmate patients should be questioned on current use and

problems associated with alcohol/drug abuse in the past. Anyone

7

with a previous history of serious complications from alcohol

withdrawal . . . should have the withdrawal protocol initiated. 8

* * * 9

Specific information should be obtained regarding: Type of

10

substance(s) used; Frequency and amount of usage; How long the

inmate patient has been using; Time of last use; Side effects

11

experienced when ceasing use in the past . . . . If alcohol withdrawal

or the potential for alcohol withdrawal is suspected, the CIWA-Ar

12

form should be initiated to quantify symptoms . . . .

13 Id. At her deposition, Nurse Sancho testified that she understood this training, including the fact

United States District Court Northern District of California

14 that Stage I symptoms do not present until six to eight hours after cessation. Sancho Dep. 41:9–

15 43:24.

16

3. Disciplinary Action

17

On August 17, 2010, at approximately 3:15 p.m., Corizon’s Assistant Health Services

18 Administrator, Lenore Gilbert, interviewed Sancho regarding the Harrison case. Gilbert

19 memorialized the meeting in a memorandum to Corizon’s Bill Wilson. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 14.

20 The document states Sancho was represented at the meeting by a licensed vocational nurse and

21 union representative, Barbara Ralls.

22

Gilbert noted that “the documentation on the inmate’s screener was not satisfactory or

23 complete.” Id. at 1. In particular, Gilbert and Corizon’s Joel Smith told Sancho that the intake

24 form “has very limited information regarding any drug/alcohol history. The type and amount of

25 alcohol used was not documented. The history of ETOH and CIWA statement was crossed out.

26 Why was that?” Id. According to Gilbert, Sancho responded: “He denied having any drinking

27 problems. He said over and over, ‘No problems, no withdrawal.’ She stated that she asked him

28 this same question 4 times and his response was the same.” Id. Gilbert then told Sancho that she 5

1 failed to document how much Harrison drank daily, and that she failed to document what type of

2 alcohol Harrison drank. Sancho told Gilbert that Harrison said he drank “2 bottles of beer.” Id. at

3 2. Per the memorandum, Sancho said she forgot to document that information, and also

4 volunteered that she forgot to document that Harrison smelled of alcohol, “a mild smell,” and that

5 he had a red, flushed face. Id. Gilbert noted that Sancho said she did not initiate a CIWA protocol

6 because she “didn’t think to. He had no alcohol problems, he said.” Id. Gilbert noted that she

7 then told Sancho that her failures to document accurately and initiate a CIWA protocol constituted

8 “unsatisfactory performance by you as the nurse . . . . [D]ocumenting your complete observations,

9 asking and documenting the screening questions in their entirety, and starting inmates who drink

10 alcohol regularly on a CIWA is critical for the safety of the inmate.” Id.

11

According to another, similar memorandum prepared by Gilbert, Sancho also failed to

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 document the amount and type of alcohol a different inmate consumed. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 32 at

13 1–2. At a counseling session with Sancho, Gilbert discussed the second inmate’s case. Sancho

14 was represented by union representative and licensed vocational nurse Blaire Behrens. Id. at 1.

15 According to the memorandum, in response to a question about incomplete documentation,

16 Sancho indicated she had no reason for the failure to document. Sancho stated that she referred

17 the patient to “psych,” but Gilbert did not find any such referral. Id. at 2. When asked why she

18 didn’t document completely, Sancho did not offer an explanation, but asked “Does this mean that I

19 don’t have to work there (ITR) anymore?,” at which point Sancho’s union representative “puts her

20 hand out to stop Zelda from talking . . . .” Id. at 2. In the conclusions section of the

21 memorandum, Gilbert wrote: “Zelda’s question about working in booking leads me to believe that

22 she may be looking for a way out of working where she is assigned. Is that why she was doing an

23 inadequate job?” Id.

24

The second memorandum also discusses an altercation Sancho had with a physician, in

25 which Sancho refused to comply with the physician’s request that she put a Q-tip to the eye of the

26 patient, forcing the physician to send the patient to the hospital for further testing. Id.

27

At his deposition, Bill Wilson, Corizon’s Health Services Administrator, confirmed that

28 Corizon Health believed Sancho should have placed Harrison on CIWA. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 11, 6

1 Wilson Dep. 49:15–18. He also testified that he determined Sancho should be terminated based

2 on Sancho’s intake of Harrison, the intake of the patient discussed in Gilbert’s second

3 memorandum, and Sancho’s refusal to follow a physician’s order in a third case. Id. 59:1–5.

4 Wilson testified that in his forty years in the health care field, he had faced few disciplinary

5 situations as serious as Sancho’s. Id. 60:10–15. Wilson confirmed that he felt Sancho jeopardized

6 patient safety. Id. 60:20–22.

7

On September 15, 2010, Corizon Health reported Sancho to the Board of Vocational

8 Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 33 at 1. On the “Employer Mandatory

9 Reporting Form,” Corizon Health indicated Sancho was terminated for “Gross negligence or

10 incompetence” and “Failure to follow procedure + policy.” Id. at 2.

11

4. Evidence Regarding “Mutilation” of the Intake Form

12

Plaintiffs maintain Nurse Sancho crossed out the alcohol withdrawal and CIWA notations

United States District Court Northern District of California

13 on the intake form after the fact. As discussed below, Megan Hast, a CJMH social worker,

14 testified that she believed Harrison had been placed on CIWA, which Plaintiffs argue is evidence

15 that, at the time Hast reviewed the intake form, the notations had not been crossed out and the

16 word “error” had not yet been written. In addition, Plaintiffs point to Corizon policy, which

17 requires that an “error” notation be accompanied by an explanation in the margin. Sherwin Decl.,

18 Ex. 35, Granlund PMK Dep. 40:7–11. According to Corizon, the strike-out also constitutes

19 impermissible “mutilation” of the medical record that contravenes Corizon policy and training. Id.

20 40:12–19.

21

Plaintiffs also submit the report of a forensic document examiner, Patricia Fisher, who

22 examined the original medical record and determined that the “cross-out was written at a later time

23 and the word, ‘error’ was not written simultaneously with the paper in the same position as the

24 ‘CIWA’ letters.” Fisher Decl., ECF No. 155, Ex. A at 2. In her declaration, Sancho states: “When

25 I was filling out the form on August 13, 2010, I moved the paper around a bit as I wrote and also

26 when I turned the form over to Mr. Harrison for his signature.” Sancho Decl., ¶ 17.

27

B. Transfer to Santa Rita Jail

28

Harrison was transported to Santa Rita Jail on the night of August 13, arriving at 11:51

7

1 p.m. Ly Decl., Ex A at 5. On August 15, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Deputy Ahlf first

2 encountered Harrison in Housing Unit 33, during “evening pill call,” when Harrison “came up

3 asking for medications.” Sherwin Decl., Ex. 30, Ahlf Dep. 51:5–7. At that time, Deputy Ahlf did

4 not know Harrison was an alcoholic, nor did he learn that information prior to Harrison’s death.

5 Id. 52:9–18. Ahlf testified that he could typically find out about an inmate’s medical history by

6 “calling the charge nurse and having his file pulled.” Id. 52:23–25. During this encounter,

7 Harrison asked for medications, and the pill call nurse did not find that any were prescribed for

8 him. Deputy Ahlf issued Harrison a sick call slip and told Harrison he could fill it out and provide

9 it to the nurse for follow-up. Id. 53:8–15. Harrison did so. His sick call slip states only “I was

10 told to” as the reason for a visit. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 19 at PLF 303. His appointment arising out

11 of the sick call slip was set for August 17, two days later. Id. at PLF 294.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Deputy Ahlf next encountered Harrison the following day, August 16, at 3:30 a.m, during

13 morning pill call. Harrison again asked for medication. Deputy Ahlf told him he would have to

14 fill out a slip. Ahlf Dep. 54:9–56:2. Deputy Ahlf did not ask him what type of medication he

15 needed. Id. 56:3–5. Sometime soon after the morning pill call, Deputy Ahlf was called to Lower

16 D Pod to check on an inmate. Id. 56:17–21. The inmate was Harrison; several inmates told

17 Deputy Ahlf that Harrison was “acting bizarrely; that he needed to be moved out of the pod.” Id.

18 57:1–7. Harrison asked Deputy Ahlf “why there was a bunch of women in his house.” Id. 57:9–

19 10. Deputy Ahlf determined that Harrison should be moved out of minimum security “[f]or his

20 safety and the safety of the other inmates” because “[h]e was displaying actions that were bizarre .

21 . . verbal statements that were bizarre, out of the ordinary.” Id. 58:7–15. Later, Deputy Ahlf told

22 his supervisor that he had concluded Harrison did not know where he was. Id. 60:19–23.

23

C. Transfer to Isolation Cell

24

Deputy Ahlf transferred Harrison to the East Isolation Center. He began an “Intensive

25 Observation Log” which bears the date and time as August 16 at 4:15 a.m. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 53.

26 Deputy Ahlf logged the reason for the transfer as “Bizarre Behavior / CJMH Referral.” Id.

27

Deputy Ahlf testified that he let his sergeant know that Harrison needed a mental health

28 referral, but he did not complete one himself because there was no one in the mental health office 8

1 at the time. Ahlf Dep. 50:22–23; 70:4–10. Deputy Ahlf also testified he called the daytime

2 sergeant — Sergeant Camara — and told him Harrison needed a mental health referral, and that

3 Sergeant Camara told him he would follow up with the mental health office. Id. 70:4–10.

4 Sergeant Shepard testified that he did not recall being notified of Harrison’s need for a mental

5 health referral. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 60, Shepard Dep. 49:1–18. Sergeant Camara has not been

6 deposed in this case. Deputy Ahlf did not notify a nurse or physician of Harrison’s behavior,

7 complete a mental health referral form, or notify CJMH that Harrison was in an isolation cell.

8 Ahlf Dep. 50:22–23.

9

The Intensive Observation Log is a log used to document “direct visual observations” of an

10 inmate every fifteen minutes. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 60. The purpose of the log is for use by mental

11 health professionals and jail staff, so “they can see what the person is doing in the course of the

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 day, in the course of the hours, minutes.” Ahlf Dep. 65:2–5. Plaintiffs do not contend that the log

13 lacks entries within the specified time limits. However, the parties agree that Deputy Ahlf failed

14 to make any observations accompanying the entries at 4:20 a.m., 4:38 a.m., and 4:45 a.m., prior to

15 the end of his shift at 5:00 a.m. on the morning of August 16. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 53.

16

Alameda County policy also requires that observations be recorded “only as they occur.”

17 Sherwin Decl., Ex. 60 at 5. Sergeant Dudek interviewed Deputy Ahlf after Harrison was

18 transferred to the hospital, and noted that the log lacked observations for the last two entries as

19 well, at 6:32 p.m. and 6:48 p.m. Sergeant Dudek ordered Deputy Ahlf to complete the log, which

20 he admitted was contrary to County policy, of which he was unaware at the time. Sherwin Decl.,

21 Ex. 62, Dudek Dep. 62–69. The log entries Deputy Ahlf filled out after the fact indicate Harrison

22 was awake in bed at those times, which contradicts the County Defendants’ claims regarding when

23 Deputy Ahlf observed that Harrison had flooded his cell and was screaming and standing with a

24 mattress over his head, as discussed below. Finally, the form contains space for entries regarding

25 when medical and psychiatric staff are notified. Those entries are blank. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 53.

26

D. Policies and Training Applicable to Deputy Ahlf Concerning Medical Care

27

Plaintiffs point to several Alameda County policies and procedures that Plaintiffs argue

28 Deputy Ahlf violated with respect to Harrison’s medical needs. 9

1

Alameda County Sheriff’s Office General Order 5.29 provides: “Staff must become

2 familiar with the causes and nature of mental disorders to determine if an individual is a danger to

3 him/herself, others, or is gravely disabled . . . . Staff must be able to recognize general indicators

4 of mental disorders so that appropriate actions can be taken during contacts on the street, during

5 interviews and interrogations or while interacting with the public.” Sherwin Decl., Ex. 54 at

6 ACSO 463 (emphasis in original). “Deputy Sheriffs should be aware that substance abuse (drugs

7 and/or alcohol) can also cause delusions, hallucinations, and violent mood swings in an

8 individual.” Id. at ACSO 464. General Order 5.29 requires: “Once the Deputy Sheriff has taken

9 control of a situation, he/she should assess the need for medical attention and summon medical

10 personnel if required.” Id. at ACSO 466. Policy and Procedure 9.04 states: “Inmates who have

11 mental/emotional disorders or psychotropic problems identified at receiving, screening, or after

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 admission, must be followed up by the medical staff.” Sherwin Decl., Ex. 55 at ACSO 459. That

13 policy provides for the initiation of an observation log when an inmate is identified as “mentally

14 disordered.” Id. In addition, “[m]edical staff will be notified and perform an immediate initial

15 evaluation.” Id. Policy and Procedure 13.12 governs the referral of inmates to psychiatric

16 services. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 56 at ACSO 454. The policy provides that “[w]hen a deputy comes

17 into contact with an inmate they suspect is suffering from a mental disorder, PHS or CJMH will be

18 contacted to examine the inmate.” Id. “It is the responsibility of staff who suspect a disorder to

19 complete and submit the Mental Health Referral Form.” Id. “A nurse or physician must

20 immediately be notified of the inmate’s behavior” through a referral made by the sheriff’s deputy.

21 Id.

22

A bulletin distributed by CJMH to Alameda County and Corizon Health staff requires in

23 large lettering: “Whenever an inmate is placed in a Safety Cell or there is a possible WI 5150

24 situation, CJMH must be notified immediately. CJMH is now on-site 7 days/wk, 15 hours/day.

25 From 0800–2300 contact the ITR Screener at x.46905. From 2300–0800 contact the On-Call

26 Clinician at x.53200, enter pager #5098, followed by your full phone number with area code.”

27 Sherwin Decl., Ex. 58. Even though there were no CJMH personnel in the mental health office at

28 the time, it is undisputed that Deputy Ahlf could have called the on-call clinician at 4:00 a.m. on 10

1 August 16 when he transferred Harrison to the isolation cell.

2

The County’s Rule 30(b)(6) person most knowledgeable regarding the handling of

3 mentally disordered inmates confirmed that, absent an emergency, County policy required a

4 “prompt referral” to CJMH. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 57, Back PMK Dep. 21:6–9. At the top of the

5 referral form was the admonition: “Rule out drug toxicity, alcohol withdrawal, head injury, et

6 cetera, before making a psych referral.” Id. 22:1–4; Sherwin Decl., Ex. 59. Sergeant Back also

7 testified that Deputy Ahlf was required by Policy and Procedure 13.12 to fill out a Mental Health

8 Referral Form. Back PMK Dep. 29:6–10.

9

E. Referral to CJMH

10

Defendant Hast, an Associate Social Worker with CJMH, began her shift in the CJMH

11 Intake, Transfer, and Release office (“ITR”) at 3:30 p.m. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 31, Hast Dep. 13:1–

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 14:2. In ITR, Hast would see clients referred by the jail to do crisis interventions, brief therapy,

13 and referrals for medication stabilization. Id.

14

Hast was aware that Delirium Tremens “is a medical emergency when somebody is

15 withdrawing from alcohol.” Id. at 14:24–15:6. She was familiar with many or even most of the

16 symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. Id. at 17:22–20:10. She testified that she knew that “when

17 somebody is having alcohol withdrawal . . . it’s important that medical personnel be dealing with

18 it” because “it’s a medical issue that needs to be addressed by medical personnel.” Id. at 20:11–

19 19.

20

Twelve hours after Harrison was transferred to an isolation cell, at approximately 3:30 p.m.

21 on August 16, the sheriff’s deputy observing Harrison called CJMH and left a voicemail message

22 requesting an evaluation. The message indicated Harrison was mumbling incoherently, that he

23 had seen a nurse but had no medications, and that he had been put on intensive observation in an

24 isolation cell that morning. Id. 35:18–25; 49:16–20.

25

Hast retrieved the message at 4:00 p.m. Id. 49:16–20. In addition to reviewing other

26 referrals during the next thirty minutes, she reviewed Harrison’s intake screening form — the form

27 Nurse Sancho had filled out at Glenn Dyer — and noted on her own chart that Harrison reported

28 alcohol use and that he was placed on CIWA. Id. 35:18–36:11. Plaintiffs point to Hast’s chart 11

1 note as evidence that at the time she reviewed the intake form, the CIWA notation had not yet

2 been crossed out, and that it was crossed out only after the events that led to this action took place.

3 Hast testified that she understood the CIWA notation to mean that Harrison had been placed under

4 the observation of Corizon Health nursing staff to monitor for alcohol withdrawal. Id. 33:1–3.

5 Hast testified that she did not have specific knowledge concerning how the CIWA protocol is

6 implemented because it is undertaken by medical staff, not mental health professionals. Id. 33:20–

7 34:6.

8

At approximately 4:30 p.m., Hast called the housing unit, and she was informed the

9 sheriff’s deputy monitoring Harrison would be leaving in thirty minutes. Id. 52:11–14. Hast was

10 aware that she might miss the deputy if she waited to visit Harrison. She was also aware that the

11 deputy’s phone message, combined with the intake form Hast reviewed, indicated it was possible

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 that Harrison was suffering from severe alcohol withdrawal, requiring immediate attention. Hast

13 testified that she did not go immediately because “I would imagine that I was looking at all of the

14 referrals that I had and triaging. And so in my process of triaging, I made that decision.” Id.

15 53:1–3. At the time of her deposition, Hast testified that she could not recall whether any other

16 inmate had a medical emergency at the same time that she called the housing unit. Id. 54:4–9.

17

Hast arrived at the housing unit an hour-and-a-half after the referral voicemail message had

18 been left, and one hour after she retrieved the message, at 5:00 p.m. By then, the deputy had left

19 and she was not able to evaluate Harrison. Id. 54:24–55:1. Hast did not request another deputy to

20 come to the housing unit, though she was aware that she could have done so. Id. 55:2–18.

21 Instead, she looked through the window of Harrison’s cell, saw that Harrison was standing at the

22 toilet, and left. Id. 58:5–59:6. Hast testified that, had she evaluated Harrison and concluded he

23 exhibited signs of severe alcohol withdrawal, she “probably” would have contacted a nurse. Id.

24 59:9–13.

25

Hast called the housing unit at 6:00 p.m. By then, Deputy Ahlf had just begun another

26 shift and was once again monitoring Harrison. Deputy Ahlf was surprised that no one from CJMH

27 had evaluated Harrison by then, because he considered Harrison’s situation severe enough to

28 warrant attention sooner. Ahlf Dep. 82:20–83:2. Deputy Ahlf told Hast that he had placed 12

1 Harrison in the isolation cell at 4:00 a.m. that day due to bizarre behavior, disorientation to time

2 and place, and incoherent mumbling, and that he was not receiving any medication. Hast Dep.

3 60:1–12. Hast testified that she knew at the time those symptoms were consistent with severe

4 alcohol withdrawal. Id. 60:13–16. Hast was also aware that Harrison’s medical records did not

5 include any records indicating he had been placed on a treatment plan to manage his withdrawal.

6 Id. 62:18–63:5. Hast did not notify a medical professional of Harrison’s condition, or tell Deputy

7 Ahlf to do so.

8

Hast did not go to the housing unit after speaking with Deputy Ahlf at 6:00 p.m. because “I

9 would imagine I was triaging the — all of the people that I was seeing, which I do throughout my

10 shift. And seeing these people and then getting there as soon as I could.” Id. 65:7–10. Deputy

11 Ahlf testified that Hast told him she “hadn’t gotten around to it” because she had to see other

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 patients. Ahlf Dep. 83:17–21. Hast did not return to the housing unit until 7:00 p.m., after the

13 events described below had already occurred.

14

Attached to the County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is the declaration of

15 Megan Hast. ECF No. 121-2. In it, Hast provides a more detailed description of the time between

16 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on the night of August 16. She could not recall those details at the time of

17 her deposition. Hast states that when she returned to her office after visiting the housing unit at

18 5:00 p.m., she had three referral forms in her inbox for three different patients. She states that she:

19 saw “Client 1” at 5:00 p.m., and spent forty-five minutes preparing for and evaluating Client 1;

20 saw “Client 2” at 5:15 p.m., and spent a total of forty-five minutes on Client 2; and saw “Client 3”

21 at 5:30 p.m., and spent a total of twenty minutes on Client 3. She also states: “Thus, the meeting

22 with Client 3 probably ended at about 5:35 p.m.” Hast Decl. ¶¶ 9–12. Hast next states she: saw

23 “Client 4” at 6:40 p.m., and spent a total of forty-five minutes with Client 4; and saw “Client 5” at

24 7:05 p.m., and spent a total of forty-five minutes with Client 5. Id. ¶¶ 14–15. The declaration also

25 states that Hast returned to the housing unit “sometime after 7:00 p.m.,” and that after returning

26 from the housing unit, she wrote her progress note for Harrison and proceeded to “manage the

27 remaining nine clients I had that evening.” Id. ¶ 16. None of Clients 1–5 were experiencing a

28 medical emergency. Plaintiffs point out that Hast’s declaration accounts for three hours and 13

1 twenty minutes of time spent either with patients or preparing to evaluate them in a space of just

2 over two hours.

3

F. Altercation with Deputy Ahlf

4

At some point around 6:30 p.m. on August 16, Deputy Ahlf observed Harrison yelling and

5 screaming, claiming someone was pointing a gun at him and shooting him. Ahlf Dep. 73:1–3.

6 Harrison had a mattress over his head, the cell was flooded, and there were broken shards of food

7 tray on the floor of the cell. Id. 73:5–10. Harrison was not actively flooding the cell; Deputy Ahlf

8 did not know how he had flooded it. Id. 73:19–24. Harrison was wearing pants and sandals, and a

9 tan shirt, but not his blue uniform shirt, so Deputy Ahlf suspected perhaps he had clogged the

10 toilet with his uniform shirt. Id.

11

Harrison was standing in one to one-and-a-half inches of water. Id. 74:12–19. At the time

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Deputy Ahlf was interviewed, after the incident, Deputy Ahlf claimed Harrison had been holding a

13 piece of food tray. At the time of his deposition, Deputy Ahlf could not recall if that was the case.

14 Id. 74:20–75:6. Deputy Ahlf asked Harrison why he had flooded his cell and broken his food tray.

15 According to Deputy Ahlf, Harrison responded “I’ve been in here all day. You guys put me here.

16 What’s going on?” Id. 77:1–3.

17

Deputy Ahlf next asked if Harrison had been seen by anyone that day. Harrison responded

18 no. Id. 77:10–15. Deputy Ahlf “absolutely” expected that someone should have gone to see

19 Harrison by then because a mental health referral should have been made. Id. 77:16–24. Deputy

20 Ahlf told Harrison “Let me try to call mental health and see if there’s anybody in the office to try

21 to find out why.” Id. 83:6–8. At that point, Deputy Ahlf had the conversation with Defendant

22 Hast described above.

23

Deputy Ahlf testified that he could have called an additional deputy for backup at this

24 time. Id. 86:22–87:1. Instead, he determined that he should move Harrison to the other isolation

25 cell since Harrison’s cell was flooded and dangerous. He told Harrison that he was going to move

26 him, and Deputy Ahlf testified that Harrison responded: “Okay, Deputy Ahlf.” Id. 87:7–89:6.

27 Although he had the option of handcuffing Harrison through the port on the cell door prior to

28 moving him, Deputy Ahlf decided to handcuff Harrison after opening the cell door because he did 14

1 not consider Harrison a threat. He asked Harrison to turn around, put his hands on his head, and

2 walk toward his voice. Id. 87:21–89:1. Deputy Ahlf testified that he did not consider Harrison

3 dangerous at that moment because Harrison was compliant — “not a threat at that point.” Id.

4 Nevertheless, Deputy Ahlf was holding a Taser in one hand “[j]ust in case something were to

5 happen.” Id. 89:16. Deputy Ahlf’s supervisor at the time, Sergeant Joseph Bricker, wrote in

6 Deputy Ahlf’s performance review after the incident that Deputy Ahlf “had a lapse in judgment”

7 when he opted to move Harrison without additional assistance. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 66, Bricker

8 Dep. 31:3–7. At his deposition, Sergeant Bricker confirmed: “I believe Deputy Ahlf should have

9 tried to get assistance in the event that something happened. I think he should have waited for

10 assistance, that was my opinion.” Id. 31:14–16.

11

Once Harrison reached the doorway, Deputy Ahlf asked Harrison to put his right hand

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 behind his back. As he was applying one handcuff, Deputy Ahlf testified, Harrison turned his

13 head and gave him “an unsettling, just blank stare. And it wasn’t until that point that I felt that –

14 not that he was going to do something, but something just wasn’t right.” Ahlf Dep. 91:7–92:1.

15 Deputy Ahlf cannot recall whether he had already put his Taser away at that point, but at his

16 deposition, he believed that he had. Id. 93:3–14. Deputy Ahlf testified that he next put away the

17 handcuffs and “gently nudged” Harrison back into his cell and instructed him to sit on the bench

18 inside the cell. Id. 94:4–6. Harrison moved four to five feet as a result of the “nudge.” Id. 94:12–

19 14. Harrison did not sit, and Deputy Ahlf removed his Taser from its holster. Id. 95:11–14.

20 Harrison “proceed[ed] to take a — I don’t want to call it running towards me, but he proceeded to

21 take a couple of steps towards me in which I took that as a direct threat and I deployed my Taser.”

22 Id. 95:16–22. Though Deputy Ahlf cannot be sure he would call it running or sprinting, he

23 testified that Harrison was moving “a lot faster than just taking a step.” Id. 96:21–24. Deputy

24 Ahlf also told his sergeant at the time that Harrison said “I’m going to kick your ass,” or

25 something similar, as he was moving. Id. 101:1–2; 103:2–9. Sergeant Scott Dudek also testified

26 that “obviously [Deputy Ahlf] made a mistake” in moving Harrison without assistance, though

27 Dudek understood why, given Deputy Ahlf’s prior contact with Harrison, Deputy Ahlf would have

28 opted to proceed alone. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 62, Dudek Dep. 45:20–46:9. 15

1

After Deputy Ahlf deployed his Taser, Harrison “kind of stepped backwards a little bit and

2 ended up falling down onto the corner of the bench and got right back up and proceeded to run out 3 the door.” Id. 99:23–25. Deputy Ahlf testified that, at that moment, he deployed one dart-mode1

4 Taser cycle. Id. 101:5–6. The Taser deployment log shows, however, that two seconds later,

5 Deputy Ahlf deployed his Taser in dart-mode for a second five-second cycle. Deputy Ahlf does

6 not have an explanation for this log record entry, and does not recall the second firing in dart

7 mode. Id. 101:20–102:3.

8

After the tasing ended, Deputy Ahlf testified that Harrison stood up and charged him.

9 Deputy Ahlf stepped to the side, Harrison slipped on the water, and slid out of his cell on his back,

10 feet first. Id. 104:13–105:6. As Harrison slid, he grabbed hold of Deputy Ahlf’s leg, and Deputy

11 Ahlf slipped and fell as well. Id. 105:14–19. Deputy Ahlf got on top of Harrison and a struggle

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 ensued. Deputy Ahlf told Harrison to stop resisting as Harrison thrashed, attempted to kick and

13 free his arms, and spit. Id. 106:13–107:16. Deputy Ahlf testified that he next delivered two open-

14 palm strikes to the back of Harrison’s head. Id. 107:18–20. At some point, Harrison had switched

15 from a supine position to a prone position. Id. 107:24–108:4. Deputy Ahlf also delivered closed-

16 fist strikes to Harrison’s back and knee strikes to his torso. Id. 108:9–10. Deputy Ahlf testified

17 that Harrison never attempted to punch, kick, or strike him, because deputy Ahlf never gave him

18 the opportunity to do so. Id. 112:9–18.

19

At some point during this struggle, Deputy Ahlf radioed for backup, and accidentally

20 called backup to housing unit 34 before correcting it to 33. Id. 116:24–117:1. Deputy Ahlf began

21 to become tired and backup did not come immediately, so he held Harrison’s arms and held down

22 Harrison’s body with his body weight until backup came. Id. 118:16–19. Deputy Ahlf testified

23 that he never held Harrison in a headlock, and that he never applied force to Harrison’s neck. Id.

24 119–120. At this time, Deputy Ahlf testified, other officers first arrived.

25

26 1 The parties explain that dart mode involves the deployment of two darts along wires. The Taser

sends an electric signal between the probes, resulting in a loss of neuromuscular control. By 27 contrast, drive stun mode is deployed with the Taser directly against the target’s body. Two

28

electrodes deliver an electric shock, which causes pain, but does not result in loss of neuromuscular control.

16

United States District Court Northern District of California

G. Arrival of the Remaining Sheriff’s Deputies 1
The evidence in the record concerning what happened next is a mass of contradictory 2
testimony and reflects, at a minimum, the chaotic nature of the events that ensued.2 3
Deputy Valverde arrived first. Id. 122:21–22; Sherwin Decl., Ex. 67, Valverde Dep. 4
26:10–12. Deputy Valverde testified that Harrison was thrashing about on his stomach, and that 5
Deputy Ahlf was on top of him. Id. 26:10–27:13. When asked whether he saw Deputy Ahlf strike 6
Harrison, Deputy Valverde testified “I do not know.” Id. 28:14–18. Deputy Valverde did not 7
provide any further detail concerning what Deputy Ahlf was doing to gain control of Harrison. 8
Deputy Valverde testified that he went to Harrison and placed his knee on Harrison’s upper back
9 and tried to grab Harrison’s right arm with his left hand. Id. 29:5–11. He testified also that he
10 avoided putting pressure on Harrison’s neck or head because it can “cause damage.” Id. 29:19–
11 30:3. He also testified that Harrison displayed “extreme strength,” as he was able to lift Deputy
12 Ahlf and Deputy Valverde from a prone position. Id. 32:12–14.
13 Deputy Swetnam arrived next, “just a step or two” behind Deputy Valverde. Sherwin
14 Decl., Ex. 68, Swetnam Dep. 19:10–13. Deputy Swetnam testified that he thought Harrison was
15 on his back, not his stomach. Id. 19:8–9. He recalled that Deputy Valverde took a position on
16 Harrison’s left side, and Deputy Swetnam went to Harrison’s legs, to attempt to take control of
17 them. He noticed Taser wires on the floor. Id. 20:16–20. Deputy Swetnam attempted to pick up
18 Harrison’s legs, but Harrison’s left leg went stiff and he let out a groan. Id. 20–21:3. Deputy
19 Swetnam believed that a Taser had just been deployed in dart mode. Id. 21:22–23:12.
20 Deputy Swetnam continued to grip Harrison’s legs, but was unable to keep control of
21 them. He then delivered a downward kick to Harrison’s lower abdomen, just below the navel. Id.
22 25:7–20. Deputy Swetnam believed Harrison had just had the “wind knocked out of him.” Id.
23 26:9–10. The three deputies then turned Harrison over, into a supine position. Id. 27:5–15. At
24 some point during this maneuver, other deputies arrived. He does not recall who. Shortly
25

26 2 As discussed more fully below, Plaintiffs also argue, through their police practices expert, that
27 the Defendant Sheriff’s Deputies in this case employed a “Code of Silence” in failing to recall any

28

details concerning what they saw each other do during the struggle. See Blair v. City of Pomona, 223 F.3d 1074, 1081 (9th Cir. 2000).

17

1 thereafter, Deputy Swetnam heard someone say “He’s got the Taser.” Id. 28:19–20. Deputy

2 Swetnam took some weight off Harrison’s legs and punched him three times in the lower

3 abdomen; he believes Harrison was on his side at this point. Id. 29:1–7. He never saw Harrison

4 with a Taser. Shortly thereafter, Deputy Swetnam believes he saw another deputy — he does not

5 remember who — deliver further strikes to Harrison’s torso. Shortly thereafter, he heard someone

6 say: “Okay. I’ve got it, I’ve got it” or “I’ve got the Taser.” Id. 31:24–25. Deputy Swetnam did

7 not witness Harrison strike anyone, though at his deposition he quibbled with the definition of

8 “strike,” as Harrison was violently “thrashing,” “wrestling,” and attempting to free his legs. Id.

9 42–49.

10

Deputy Valverde testified that he noticed the Taser for the first time when he saw Harrison

11 grab the Taser in his right hand. Valverde Dep. 34:10–21. Deputy Valverde attempted to “get it

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 out of his hand” by punching Harrison on the wrist repeatedly, but Harrison would not let go. Id.

13 35:14–19. Deputy Valverde testified that he “advised everybody that there was a Taser . . . .” Id.

14 36:2–4. He could not recall whether there were any deputies there at that moment other than he

15 and Deputy Ahlf. Id. 36:10–18. He believes “somebody got control of the Taser” after that,

16 though he did not see it. Id. 36:19–23. Deputy Valverde testified that the deputies were then able

17 to handcuff Harrison. Id. 37:14–15. Deputy Valverde testified that he did not witness any other

18 deputy strike Harrison, that he did not see who handcuffed Harrison or how it was accomplished.

19 Id. 37:5–38:22. The next thing Deputy Valverde remembered was the deputies moving Harrison

20 to an isolation cell. Id. 39:2–6. During that process, Harrison alternately threatened to kill the

21 deputies and yelled that he loved them. Id. 40:1–5.

22

Deputy Ahlf testified that prior to Harrison’s grabbing the Taser, a deputy lifted him off of

23 Harrison. Ahlf Dep. 124:15–20. Deputy Ahlf then heard someone say “He’s got the Taser.” Id.

24 125:4–7. Deputy Ahlf went to Harrison’s arms and saw he was holding the Taser. Deputy Ahlf

25 testified that he used his foot to grab hold of the Taser and slide it away from Harrison. Id.

26 126:14–23. Deputy Ahlf did not recall seeing anyone hit Harrison’s hands. Id. 127:13–14.

27 Deputy Ahlf next picked up the Taser and told Harrison to stop resisting; he then tased Harrison in

28 drive stun mode on the upper back. Id. 129:24–130:19. He is not sure whether the probes were 18

1 still attached to Harrison — he testified that the drive stun “didn’t seem to have any effect on

2 him,” though Harrison tensed and his legs straightened. Id. 131:2–14. Deputy Ahlf testified that

3 he did not recall seeing what precisely any other deputy was doing during this time, though he

4 “saw Mr. Harrison get struck” by deputies. Id. 132:11–23.

5

Deputies Litvinchuk, Madigan, Martinez, Unubun, and Rojas arrived at some point around

6 the time Harrison had picked up the Taser. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 70, Martinez Dep. 53:14–15; Ex.

7 71, Litvinchuk Dep. 25:16–17; Ex. 72, Madigan Dep. 22:1–2; Ex. 74, Rojas Dep. 31:18–21; Ex.

8 75, Unubun Dep. 30:2–2. Deputies Sobrero and Bareno arrived sometime after that. Sherwin

9 Decl., Ex. 76, Sobrero Dep. 30–33; Ex. 77, Bareno Dep. 23:2–24:23.

10

Deputy Martinez heard someone say “He’s got ahold of my Taser,” so he pulled out his

11 Taser, removed the frontal cartridge, and delivered a drive stun to Harrison’s back, between the

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 shoulder blades. Martinez Dep. 53:14–20. County-issued Tasers deliver a five-second cycle

13 unless the trigger is depressed for longer. Deputy Martinez delivered a seven-second drive stun.

14 Id. 56:12–57:7. Deputy Martinez determined that the Taser had not had an effect on Harrison, so

15 he delivered a second drive stun to Harrison between the shoulder blades. He does not dispute

16 that three seconds went by between stun cycles. Id. 57:15–59:3. The second time “seemed to be

17 more effective because we were able to get his arms from underneath him and secure him in

18 handcuffs.” Id. 59:6–10. Deputy Martinez testified that he never struck Harrison, and he never

19 saw Harrison strike a deputy. Id. 69–70. Prior to delivering the first stun, Deputy Martinez yelled

20 “Taser, Taser, Taser,” but otherwise did not warn Harrison prior to delivering the stuns. Id.

21 70:21–71:16.

22

The remaining deputies testified as to the use of force as follows.

23

Deputy Litvinchuk testified that he grabbed Harrison’s right arm with his left hand and

24 delivered “three or four closed fist strikes to the right upper torso.” Litvinchuk Dep. 28:9–29:5.

25 He testified that he did not see any other deputy strike Harrison. Id. 30:6–18.

26

Deputy Madigan testified that he stepped on Harrison’s right hand, pinning the Taser to the

27 ground for less than a minute. Madigan Dep. 24:6–18. He also placed his right knee on

28 Harrison’s back after the Taser was secured “to stop him from being able to get up” for 19

1 approximately three minutes. Id. 26:17–28:15. Deputy Madigan testified that the struggle “went

2 on for a while.” Id. 28:14–15. Deputy Madigan also placed Harrison’s right arm in a wrist lock to

3 handcuff him. Id. 28:18–21.

4

Deputy Bareno testified that when he arrived, he determined that he did not need to

5 intervene because Harrison was not trying to get up and was not trying to injure a deputy. Bareno

6 Dep. 23:25–24:12. Deputy Bareno never saw Harrison strike, punch, or slap a deputy; he testified

7 that Harrison did attempt to kick deputies several times. Id. 27:4–22. He also testified that he saw

8 several deputies attempt to strike Harrison, but could not tell who attempted which strike. Id. 29–

9 30.

10

Deputy Sobrero testified that when he arrived there were “enough people to deal with the

11 situation.” Sobrero Dep. 40:9–12. He was going to leave, but the deputy with control of

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Harrison’s left arm “gave up and got up and left Deputy Unubun by himself trying to control those

13 arms, and so I took his place.” Id. 40:22–41:1. Deputy Sobrero was otherwise unable to describe

14 the other deputies’ actions. Id. 41:6–7. Deputy Sobrero testified that he did not feel he needed to

15 strike or kick Harrison, put him in a headlock, place his body weight on him, or deliver knee

16 strikes because he was “able to overcome the resistance by using compliance techniques.” Id.

17 44:11–45:5.

18

Deputy Rojas testified that he never struck Harrison, and that he never saw another deputy

19 strike him, either. Rojas Dep. 27:14–15. He also testified he never saw any deputy use a Taser on

20 Harrison. Id. 31:2–3. He also testified that he took hold of Harrison’s right wrist and brought his

21 arm to the small of his back, “which kind of forced his body to lay flat on his stomach.” Id.

22 30:10–13.

23

Like Deputy Rojas, Deputy Unubun testified that he grabbed Harrison’s right hand and

24 used a joint manipulation technique to rotate Harrison’s right wrist around to the small of

25 Harrison’s back. Unubun Dep. 32:10–34:8. The technique worked sufficiently that Deputy

26 Unubun was able to handcuff Harrison. Id. Another deputy handed Deputy Unubun Harrison’s

27 left arm, and he handcuffed that wrist as well. Id. 37:8–16.

28

Once the deputies gained control of Harrison, Deputies Rojas and Sobrero moved Harrison

20

1 to the other isolation cell, fifty to sixty feet away, and placed him on the floor, handcuffed, face

2 down. Sobrero Dep., 59–61; Rojas Dep. 38–40. Deputy Sobrero testified that Harrison remained

3 on the floor of the isolation cell for eight to ten minutes, including the time the deputies spent

4 waiting for a waist chain and leg shackles to be brought to the cell. Sobrero Dep. 76:1–2. Deputy

5 Rojas had asked for a spit mask — a hood to prevent spitting. Rojas Dep. 39:8–20. Deputy

6 Bareno knelt on Harrison’s legs, locking them in a “figure four leg lock” for three minutes or

7 “maybe a little longer.” Bareno Dep. 65–68. Deputies Rojas and Litvinchuk then put the spit

8 mask on Harrison. Litvinchuk Dep. 44:14–21. Deputy Sobrero and others also applied waist

9 chains and leg irons. Sobrero Dep. 73:16–23.

10

The County does not point to any evidence that Harrison struck or kicked any deputy

11 throughout this encounter, although every deputy testified to Harrison’s violent thrashing.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

A nurse arrived after the chains, spit mask, and leg irons were applied. The nurse asked

13 the deputies to move Harrison into the hallway for evaluation. Sobrero Dep. 76:3–20. At some

14 point when Harrison was moved into the hallway, Deputy Ahlf took a close-up photograph of

15 Harrison wearing the spit mask. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 87 (photo). Sergeant Dudek testified that

16 Deputy Ahlf told him “I got a great photo of him in the -- with his spit mask on.” Dudek Dep.

17 59:20–60:1. Sergeant Dudek testified: “I didn’t want to know what he meant by that” because “it

18 just leaves too many doors open. Was it a great photo because the light was good? Was it a great

19 photo for inappropriate purposes? I didn’t want to know.” Id. 60:2–8.

20

H. Transfer to Hospital and Death

21

The nurse who examined Harrison in the hallway testified that Harrison’s saturation rate

22 was 97%, which indicated adequate oxygen levels, and that his pulse was 57 beats per minute. Ly

23 Decl., Ex. O, Imperio Dep. 16–17. She recorded the time she examined Harrison as 7:10 p.m. on

24 August 16. Id. She was unable, however, to measure Harrison’s blood pressure, because he

25 resisted. Id. At some point in the next three minutes, Harrison became unresponsive to verbal or

26 tactile stimuli. Id. 19:21–20:6. Harrison was wheeled to the trauma room in the jail at around

27 7:13 p.m. He arrived unresponsive, so the nurses there used an automatic external defibrillator

28 (“AED”) to get a reading on his heart rhythm. Ly Decl., Ex. P, Blyakherova Dep. 28–29. No 21

1 reading was detected. Nurse Blyakherova and Nurse Anderson performed chest compressions,

2 alternating thirty-two compressions and two blasts of air from an “ambu bag.” Id. 30. Harrison

3 remained unresponsive. He was transported to Valley Care Hospital. He remained unresponsive,

4 and died two days later on August 18, 2010.

5

I. Coroner’s Report

6

County Coroner Thomas Wayne Rogers, M.D. performed the autopsy. Sherwin Decl., Ex.

7 78 (autopsy report). The coroner determined Harrison’s cause of death as: “Anoxic

8 Encephalopathy due to cardiac arrest following excessive physical exertion, multiple blunt injuries 9 and Tasering.” Id. at 1.3

10

The coroner found blood on: the right and left sides of Harrison’s head and neck that

11 appeared to have come from his nose and mouth; his right and left arms; his torso, in small

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 amounts; and a 6-inch streak over his left ribs. The report describes the following blunt injuries: a

13 16x9-inch contusion over Harrison’s right lateral neck extending down to the upper lumbar area;

14 two quarter-inch abrasions on the right side of his lower lip; a 3/8-inch contusion on the inner

15 surface of the left side of his upper lip; a 5/8-inch abrasion under his chin; and a 4x2.5-inch

16 contusion on the right side of his neck.

17

On the right arm, the coroner found: a 12x7-inch contusion on Harrison’s arm; four

18 abrasions on his wrist; two half-inch contusions over his hand; a 1.75-inch contusion on the palm

19 of his hand; another 2.5xhalf-inch contusion on the palm of his hand; a half-inch contusion on the

20 front of his thumb; an eighth-inch abrasion on the tip of his third finger; a half-inch contusion on

21 his upper arm; and three other smaller contusions on his upper arm. On the left arm, the coroner

22 found: a one-inch contusion on his upper arm; a 1.25-inch contusion on his upper arm; two small

23 abrasions on his upper arm; a 12x5-inch contusion over his upper arm and elbow; black abrading

24 over his elbow; a 10x4-inch contusion on his forearm; a small abrasion on the elbow; a small

25 abrasion on his wrist; a 3x1.5-inch contusion and a 2-inch contusion on the palm of his hand; and

26 another 2.25-inch contusion over his second metacarpal.

27

28

3 Strangely, the report begins by identifying the body as a white male, 6’3” long and weighing 199 pounds. Id. at 2.

22

1

On Harrison’s right leg, the coroner found: a 6x3.5-inch contusion on his thigh, a 1x1-inch

2 contusion on his lower leg; two small open areas of skin on his thigh; and a small abrasion on his

3 lower leg. On Harrison’s left leg, the coroner found: three to four contusions on his thigh,

4 covering a 1.5-inch area; a 2-inch contusion on his thigh; a 5/8-inch contusion on his knee; a 1.5-

5 inch abrasion on his lower leg; a small abrasion over his lower leg; a 1.5-inch contusion over his

6 knee; abrading of the skin around his knee; a 2xhalf-inch contusion on his thigh; a small contusion

7 on his thigh; a 1xquarter-inch contusion on his thigh; and a small contusion on his lower leg.

8

On Harrison’ torso, the coroner found a 4x3.5-inch contusion on his right shoulder; a 5x4-

9 inch contusion on his right side; abrading on the right side of his back; a 3-inch contusion on his

10 right gluteal area; a 6x4-inch contusion on the left side of his back; a 5x4-inch contusion on the

11 back of his left shoulder with hemorrhaging underneath; a 5-inch contusion over his right clavicle;

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 a 2.25x3/16-inch abrasion over his right shoulder; and other abrasions.

13

The coroner also found: fluid in the space around the lungs and in the abdominal cavity; a

14 two-inch hemorrhage in the left pleural cavity between ribs 4 and 5; a 6xhalf-inch hemorrhage

15 over left rib 7; and hemorrhage in the right pleural cavity covering an interrupted 8x2-inch space,

16 from ribs 5 to 12. Harrison’s heart was enlarged, weighing 470 grams. His right and left knuckles

17 and right wrist were incised and there was hemorrhage beneath some of the knuckles and in his

18 wrist. In the strap muscles of his neck, the coroner found several areas of hemorrhage as well.

19 The coroner found further hemorrhaging in his cranium.

20

J. Expert Opinions

21

1. Police Practices Expert John J. Ryan

22

Plaintiffs’ “police practices expert,” John J. Ryan, was an active police officer for twenty

23 years prior to retiring as a Captain of the Providence, Rhode Island Police Department in June of

24 2002. Ryan Decl., ECF No. 156 ¶ 1. He is now a consultant in police and law enforcement

25 practices. As part of his work, he has authored law enforcement guides; spoken numerous times

26 to conferences on law enforcement practices; conducted training sessions for public employees,

27 including law enforcement officers, attorneys, and judges; and taught courses on police policy and

28 procedure, arrest, and the use of force. Among the materials Ryan reviewed in preparing his 23

1 expert report are jail records, the deposition transcripts of jail personnel and sheriff’s deputies,

2 audio recordings of interviews with sheriff’s deputies recorded by the County; transcripts of

3 interviews with eyewitnesses, and the personnel files of the Sheriff’s Deputies.

4

After carefully cataloguing the events of August 13–16, 2010, Ryan reached several

5 conclusions concerning the adequacy of the jail staff’s response to Harrison’s condition.

6

First, Ryan states that he is familiar with the California POST Learning Domains with

7 respect to officer training applicable to the Sheriff’s Deputies in this case, and that it is his opinion

8 that “the action of the deputies throughout this case was inconsistent with such training.” Id. ¶ 94.

9 In particular, Ryan states that Deputy Ahlf’s decision to deal with Harrison without backup

10 breached training “well known in law enforcement and emphasized in California Post training that

11 when dealing with someone with a mental impairment, backup should [be] requested.” Id.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Second, Ryan concludes, based on the record in this case, including the autopsy report,

13 “that the use of force used by the deputies involved in the event with Mr. Harrison was

14 inconsistent with generally accepted policies, practices, training, and legal mandates with respect

15 to use of force.” Id. ¶ 96. Ryan also concludes that any officer present “had a recognized

16 obligation . . . to intervene in the force which was taking place.” Id.

17

Ryan states that, in his opinion, Harrison’s injuries “were not explained by the materials to

18 include reports, interviews, or depositions of the officers.” Id. ¶ 97. While Ryan explicitly avoids

19 assessing the credibility of the officers, “it must be recognized that the varying descriptions

20 provided by the deputies of both what each individual deputy did to control Harrison, as well as

21 allegations that Harrison was in possession of the TASER are not consistent.” Id. ¶ 97.

22

In discussing the excessive force analysis set forth by the Supreme Court in Graham v.

23 Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), Ryan states that “hard hand strikes such as punches and kicks are

24 considered significant force options and TASER is considered a significant intermediate weapon.”

25 Id. ¶ 99. Ryan also confirms the Court’s review of the facts above — “at no time did Mr. Harrison

26 land a strike or kick on any involved officer. In fact, his actions were described as flailing;

27 attempting to break free; and verbal threats.” Id. ¶ 100. “It is noted that no deputy testified that

28 Mr. Harrison’s resistance ever placed a deputy at risk.” Id. ¶ 108. 24

1

Ryan also concludes that “[t]he seriousness of the event was largely the decision of Deputy

2 Ahlf to move him to a different cell . . . . Ahlf considered Harrison such an insignificant threat

3 that he decided to open the cell without backup and move him to a different cell on his own.” Id.

4 Ryan states that, in reviewing the evidence, he concludes nine deputies used force to control

5 Harrison, and that Deputy Bareno indicated there was no need for him to intervene to assist the

6 other deputies. Id. ¶ 102. “Here the correctional officers used force that from a proportionality

7 scale far outweighed the need which was simply to move Harrison to the other isolation cell. It is

8 of note that Deputy Ahlf testified that he was able to maintain control of Harrison by himself

9 between the time he called for assistance and other deputies arrived.” Id. ¶ 105.

10

With respect to Harrison’s possession of the Taser, Ryan’s report states: “Even by a review

11 of the contrasting testimony by the deputies with regard to Harrison’s alleged possession of the

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 TASER, it is clear that he was never in a position to use the TASER even if he was in purposeful

13 possession of it.” Id. ¶ 109.

14

Finally, Ryan concludes: “It is my opinion . . . that the deposition testimony of the

15 involved officers provides evidence of the Code of Silence among the involved deputies in this

16 case.” Id. ¶ 117. Ryan has written about and conducted trainings regarding the Code of Silence.

17 Ryan points to the “consistent inability to recall what other deputies were doing or a complete

18 denial that actions of other deputies were witnessed” as evidence in this case of the Code of

19 Silence. Id. ¶ 122. “The code of silence may also explain why not a single officer can offer any

20 explanation for injuries to Mr. Harrison’s neck and head.” Id.

21

2. Plaintiffs’ Medical Experts

22

a. Michael M. Baden, M.D.

23

Plaintiffs retained Dr. Michael Baden as an expert. Dr. Baden is a board-certified forensic

24 pathologist and the former Chief Medical Examiner of New York City. He reviewed the autopsy

25 report, coroner’s report, death certificate, jail records, medical records, and several deposition

26 transcripts in this case. Dr. Baden concludes: “It is my opinion that Mr. Harrison died because

27 prison personnel failed to properly diagnose and treat his severe alcohol withdrawal symptoms

28 that developed into Delirium Tremens; because he was not properly examined by a physician for 25

1 his obvious medical problems; and because he was struck many times by Sheriff’s officers,

2 Tasered multiple times, and physically restrained so that his breathing was compromised causing

3 his brain to be deprived of oxygen with resulting anoxic encephalopathy.” Baden Report, ECF

4 No. 152-1.

5

b. Kathryn Burns, M.D.

6

Plaintiffs also retained Dr. Kathryn Burns. Dr. Burns is a board-certified psychiatrist. In

7 preparing her expert report, Dr. Burns reviewed the medical records in this case and the Sancho,

8 Ahlf, Hast, Orr, Granlund, Sass, and Magat deposition transcripts. Burns Report, ECF No. 154.

9 Dr. Burns states that Harrison had a serious medical need that was increasingly apparent from the

10 time of his arrest and booking to the altercation with the Sheriff’s Deputies. Id. at 2. Dr. Burns

11 concludes that Corizon and Dr. Orr failed to implement an appropriate screening procedure,

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 leading to a “cursory, inaccurate, and incomplete” medical screening at the Glenn Dyer detention

13 facility. Id. at 3. In addition, she concludes Corizon and Dr. Orr failed to ensure adequate

14 supervision and oversight of the screening process. Id.

15

In addition, Dr. Burns concludes Deputy Ahlf’s inadequate training at the jail resulted in

16 his failure to summon medical or mental health staff, and that the County failed to train jail staff to

17 detect the signs and symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. Id. Dr. Burns also concludes that the

18 County failed adequately to train CJMH staff, including Hast, in triaging and responding to

19 emergency referrals. Dr. Burns concludes Corizon Health was deliberately indifferent through its

20 employees by allowing Nurse Sancho to screen Harrison without clinical supervision, failing to

21 ensure accurate screening information, failing to ensure proper screening after Harrison was

22 transferred to Santa Rita Jail, failing to train employees and/or to ensure compliance with alcohol

23 withdrawal protocols, and failing to ensure Harrison was assessed and monitored for alcohol

24 withdrawal. Id. at 4.

25

Finally, Dr. Burns concludes the substandard care provided by Corizon Health and Hast

26 was a substantial and contributing cause of Harrison’s death. Id.

27 / / /

28 26

United States District Court Northern District of California

3. Defendants’ Medical Experts 1
a. Robert Wetli, M.D. 2
Dr. Robert Wetli is a board-certified forensic pathologist. He was retained by the County. 3
In preparing his expert report, Dr. Wetli reviewed Harrison’s medical records and certain jail 4
records. Wetli Report, ECF No. 123. Dr. Wetli concludes that “[t]he autopsy did not identify any 5
injury or disease process that could account for [Harrison’s] death.” Id., Ex. B at 2. Dr. Wetli 6
notes that Delirium Tremens has a mortality rate of approximately thirty percent. Id. Dr. Wetli 7
states that, had the use of Tasers produced Harrison’s cardiac arrest, he would have exhibited a 8
fatal cardiac rhythm disturbance within fifteen seconds of the discharge, which did not occur. Id. 9
at 3. He also notes that “the extensive bleeding into soft tissues and around the neck area are in 10
large part markedly exaggerated” post-mortem. Dr. Wetli further concludes that nothing suggests 11
there was an asphyxia component to Harrison’s death. Instead, Dr. Wetli is of the opinion that 12
Harrison died from “metabolic complications of agitated delirium due to Delirium Tremens that 13
was a consequence of his alcoholism.” Id. at 4. 14
b. Vincent J. M. Di Maio, M.D. 15
Dr. Vincent DiMaio is a board-certified forensic pathologist and was the Chief Medical 16
Examiner of San Antonio, Texas until 2006, when he retired. He was retained by the County. Dr. 17
DiMaio reviewed Harrison’s medical records and relevant deposition transcripts in preparing his 18
expert report. DiMaio Report, ECF No. 122, Ex. B. Dr. DiMaio broadly agrees with Dr. Wetli, 19
and concludes that Harrison died of Delirium Tremens. Id. at 5. He also concludes the deputies’ 20
conduct did not contribute to Harrison’s death. Id. 21
c. James A. Rael, M.D. 22
Dr. James Rael is a board-certified internist and was the Medical Director for the Contra 23
Costa County detention facilities for ten years. He was retained by the County. He reviewed 24
Harrison’s medical records and certain deposition transcripts. Rael Report, ECF No. 121-3, Ex. B. 25
He concludes Megan Hast’s conduct was “well within the standard of care.” Id. at 1. He states 26
Hast’s attempt to visit Harrison was timely. Dr. Rael does not consider Hast’s decision to return 27
to the housing unit later after her initial visit a delay in care. Id. at 2. He also concludes Hast’s 28
27

1 conduct with respect to the remaining patients that day was within the standard of care. Id.

2

d. Robert Jones, M.D.

3

Dr. Robert Jones is a board-certified family practitioner with experience in correctional

4 healthcare. He was retained by the County. In his declaration, Dr. Jones expresses the following

5 opinions based on his expertise and his review of the medical records in this case: the healthcare

6 system in place at Glenn Dyer and Santa Rita Jail was “thoughtful, reasonable, and rational”;

7 Corizon’s policies and procedures were “thoughtful, reasonable and rational” and “[t]hey met or

8 exceeded the standard of care”; Corizon’s training program for nurses met the standard of care;

9 Corizon’s hiring and retention of Nurse Sancho, and its response to her handling of Harrison’s

10 intake screening, were reasonable; Corizon met the standard of care in approving the medical

11 training of sheriff’s deputies; Corizon’s inmate transfer policy met the standard of care; and the

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 standard of care did not require that Harrison be re-screened at Santa Rita, nor that the initial

13 screening be audited for completeness or correctness. In addition, Dr. Jones concluded that,

14 “[h]ad Mr. Harrison received medical treatment at any time up until the time he was tazed, he

15 would not have died from alcohol withdrawal in relation to his incarceration.”

16

e. Kathryn Wild, R.N.

17

Kathryn Wild is a registered nurse in the state of California and has worked in the

18 correctional healthcare field for the past twenty-eight years. She was retained by Nurse Sancho.

19 Nurse Wild reviewed Harrison’s jail records, medical records, and several deposition transcripts.

20 Wild Report, ECF No. 133-3. Nurse Wild concludes that the care Nurse Sancho delivered to

21 Harrison during his screening at Glenn Dyer “was within the scope of her practice as a licensed

22 vocational nurse and met the established standard of care expected in an adult correctional facility

23 in California.” Id. at 2. Nurse Wild takes the position that the screening performed by Nurse

24 Sancho was only meant to identify and meet urgent health needs, none of which Harrison

25 presented at the time.

26

f. Eugene Schoenfeld, M.D.

27

Dr. Eugene Schoenfeld is a psychiatrist with a specialty in psychopharmacology. He was

28 retained by Nurse Sancho. Dr. Schoenfeld states that it was “highly unlikely” that Harrison would 28

1 have consumed more than three ounces of alcohol if he had two beers on August 13, 2010.

2 V. 3

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Civil Local Rules 7-3(a) and (c) prohibit the filing of separate evidentiary objections to a

4 motion or opposition to a motion filed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1. Accordingly, the Court

5 strikes as improper, and will not consider, the evidentiary objections filed by the parties at ECF

6 Nos. 161-1 (Sancho), 163-1 (Corizon Health & Dr. Orr), and 164 (Plaintiffs).

7

The County objects to the Plaintiffs’ use of portions of their own depositions as

8 inadmissible hearsay. County MSJ Reply, ECF No. 159 at 1. That objection is overruled as moot,

9 as the Court does not rely on those portions of the depositions in its ruling.

10 VI. LEGAL STANDARD

11

Summary judgment is proper when a “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

13 “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by”

14 citing to depositions, documents, affidavits, or other materials. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A

15 party also may show that such materials “do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine

16 dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R.

17 Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). An issue is “genuine” only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable

18 fact-finder to find for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–

19 49 (1986). A fact is “material” if the fact may affect the outcome of the case. Id. at 248. “In

20 considering a motion for summary judgment, the court may not weigh the evidence or make

21 credibility determinations, and is required to draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the

22 non-moving party.” Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997).

23

Where the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial,

24 that party bears the initial burden of producing evidence that would entitle it to a directed verdict if

25 uncontroverted at trial. See C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474,

26 480 (9th Cir. 2000). Where the party moving for summary judgment would not bear the burden of

27 proof at trial, that party bears the initial burden of either producing evidence that negates an

28 essential element of the non-moving party’s claim, or showing that the non-moving party does not 29

1 have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial. If

2 the moving party satisfies its initial burden of production, then the non-moving party must produce

3 admissible evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Nissan Fire &

4 Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 2000).

5

The non-moving party must “identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that

6 precludes summary judgment.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). Indeed, it is

7 not the duty of the district court to “to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact.”

8 Id. “A mere scintilla of evidence will not be sufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for

9 summary judgment; rather, the nonmoving party must introduce some significant probative

10 evidence tending to support the complaint.” Summers v. Teichert & Son, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150,

11 1152 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If the non-moving party fails

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 to make this showing, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v.

13 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

14 VII. ANALYSIS

15

Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for violation of Harrison’s federal

16 constitutional rights; for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights to familial association guaranteed by the

17 Fourteenth Amendment; for violation of California’s Bane Act, Cal. Civil Code § 52.1; and for

18 common law negligence, assault, and battery, and violation of California Government Code

19 section 845.6. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims.

20

A. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs — Individual Defendants

21

As a pre-trial detainee, Harrison’s rights while in custody of the County derived from the

22 Due Process clause rather than the Eight Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual

23 punishment. Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). “[T]he due

24 process clause imposes, at a minimum, the same duty the Eighth Amendment imposes: ‘persons in

25 custody ha[ve] the established right to not have officials remain deliberately indifferent to their

26 serious medical needs.’” Id. (quoting Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir.1996)).

27

In order to establish a violation of that right, Plaintiffs must establish a “serious medical

28 need” such that “failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or 30

1 the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.

2 2006). Next, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants' response to the serious medical need was

3 deliberately indifferent. Id. Deliberate indifference may be established by evidence of “(a) a

4 purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b) harm

5 caused by the indifference.” Id. Deliberate indifference may be shown where prison officials or

6 practitioners “deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment.” Hutchinson v. United

7 States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). In contrast, “mere negligence in diagnosing or treating

8 a medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights.” Id.

9 See Hunt v. Dental Dept., 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989) (prisoner's deliberate indifference

10 allegations were sufficient where he alleged “prison officials were aware of his bleeding gums,

11 breaking teeth, and his inability to eat properly, yet failed to take any action to relieve his pain or

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 to prescribe a soft food diet until new dentures could be fitted.”); Baker v. County of Sonoma, No.

13 08-cv-03433-EDL, 2009 WL 330937, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (allegations of prison

14 officials denying prisoner his pain medication were sufficient to state deliberate indifference

15 claim).

16

“The state of mind for deliberate indifference is subjective recklessness.” Snow v.

17 McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985–86 (9th Cir. 2012). However, the standard is “less stringent in cases

18 involving a prisoner's medical needs . . . because ‘the State's responsibility to provide inmates with

19 medical care ordinarily does not conflict with competing administrative concerns.’” McGuckin v.

20 Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) (partially overruled on other grounds) (quoting

21 Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992)) (alterations omitted) (quoted approvingly in Snow,

22 681 F.3d at 985). “Similarly, ‘[i]n deciding whether there has been deliberate indifference to an

23 inmate's serious medical needs, [courts] need not defer to the judgment of prison doctors or

24 administrators.’” Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (quoting Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th

25 Cir. 1989)). “Although the deliberate indifference doctrine contains a heightened foreseeability

26 requirement, this requirement differs from the traditional negligence foreseeability requirement

27 only insofar as deliberate indifference requires the defendant to be subjectively aware that serious

28 harm is likely to result from a failure to provide medical care.” Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1193. 31

1

The parties do not dispute that alcohol withdrawal and Delirium Tremens constitute a

2 serious medical need. Instead, Defendants address the second prong, and contend that the

3 evidence taken as a whole and construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs does not

4 constitute deliberate indifference to Harrison’s serious medical needs.

5

1. Nurse Sancho

6

The Ninth Circuit has held that failure to medically screen new inmates may constitute

7 deliberate indifference to medical needs. Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1189–93 (applying same deliberate

8 indifference standard to municipality that applies to individuals under the Eight Amendment).

9

Nurse Sancho argues that she could not have been deliberately indifferent to Harrison’s

10 medical needs because there was no information from which she could have concluded that

11 Harrison was at risk of alcohol withdrawal, and because Sancho never reached the subjective

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 conclusion that Harrison, in fact, was at risk of alcohol withdrawal.

13

It is true that to be deliberately indifferent, a detention official must both be aware of the

14 facts from which the inference of a serious medical need could be drawn, and must also draw that

15 inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). However, “deliberate indifference to

16 medical needs may be shown by circumstantial evidence when the facts are sufficient to

17 demonstrate that a defendant actually knew of a risk of harm.” Lolli v. Cnty. of Orange, 351 F.3d

18 410, 421 (9th Cir. 2003). “Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial

19 risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from

20 circumstantial evidence, . . . and a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a

21 substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842.

22

In Gibson, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence for a

23 jury to conclude that a nurse with appropriate medical training who knew an inmate was

24 exhibiting signs of medical illness and possessed psychotropic medication that would have

25 addressed the manic state that led to his heart attack had acted with deliberate indifference to the

26 inmate’s needs. Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1194. “If the nurse knew that a substantial risk to Gibson's

27 health existed and she declined to act upon this knowledge, she was deliberately indifferent to

28 Gibson's constitutional right to receive medical care.” Id. 32

1

Likewise, here, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could find Sancho was

2 deliberately indifferent to the risk of severe alcohol withdrawal when she failed to initiate a CIWA

3 protocol or otherwise ensure Harrison’s medical needs would be addressed. Sancho testified that

4 she knew Harrison was an alcoholic, that his last drink was earlier the day of his incarceration, that

5 he drank every day, that he smelled of alcohol, that his face was red, and that alcohol withdrawal

6 does not set in for six to eight hours after the patient’s last drink. Sancho also suspected a risk of

7 withdrawal, as she noted on the intake form “with history of alcohol withdrawal” and “CIWA.”

8 The evidence is in dispute as to whether Sancho crossed out those notations contemporaneously,

9 or after Harrison actually suffered withdrawal, but even if the strike-out was contemporaneous, the

10 fact that Sancho wrote the notations at all could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that Sancho

11 was subjectively aware of the risk of withdrawal, and nevertheless did nothing. Of course, there is

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 also sufficient evidence for a reasonably jury to conclude the strike-out was not contemporaneous.

13 Such a finding by the jury would mean that Sancho made a CIWA notation on Harrison’s intake

14 form, but failed to initiate the protocol.

15

Sancho also argues that “an isolated incident of neglect does not rise to the level of

16 deliberate indifference,” citing Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d at 1096. ECF No. 133 at 14-15. What Jett

17 actually says is that “[i]f the harm is an ‘isolated exception’ to the defendant's ‘overall treatment of

18 the prisoner [it] ordinarily militates against a finding of deliberate indifference.’” 439 F.3d 1091

19 at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other

20 grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997). Viewing the evidence in

21 the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Sancho’s conduct was not an “isolated exception” to an

22 overall course of treatment that was otherwise adequate, but rather the beginning of a lengthy

23 chain of medical indifference that culminated in Harrison’s death.

24

Sancho relies on two decisions in arguing that her conduct does not rise to the level of

25 deliberate indifference. In Wereb v. Maui Cnty., 727 F. Supp. 2d 898, 915 (D. Haw. 2010), on

26 reconsideration in part, 830 F. Supp. 2d 1026 (D. Haw. 2011), the court held that prison officials’

27 complete lack of awareness of the inmate’s alcoholism that led to his death while in custody

28 precluded a finding of deliberate indifference. The Wereb case is inapposite because Sancho was 33

1 aware of Harrison’s alcoholism.

2

In Kellogg v. Kitsap Cnty., No. 12-cv-5717-RJB, 2013 WL 4507087, at *5–6 (W.D. Wash.

3 Aug. 22, 2013), a medical provider formed the subjective conclusion that an inmate was an

4 alcoholic at risk of withdrawal, and monitored him. However, because the provider knew the

5 inmate was being transported to a detoxification facility before severe withdrawal would set in, the

6 provider did not initiate a detoxification protocol. The inmate suffered a seizure, fell, and suffered

7 an injury to his shoulder. Although there was evidence suggesting the provider’s treatment plan

8 fell below the professional standard of care, the court nonetheless granted summary judgment to

9 the provider because his quality of care did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference.

10

Here, there is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Sancho was subjectively aware

11 of the risk of alcohol withdrawal, but failed nevertheless to fill out a CIWA form, initiate the

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 CIWA protocol, or otherwise ensure Harrison would receive medical help. Unlike the provider in

13 Kellogg, Sancho did nothing to address Harrison’s apparent risk of alcohol withdrawal. A

14 reasonable jury would be justified in finding that she was deliberately indifferent.

15

2. Deputy Ahlf

16

Unlike Nurse Sancho, Deputy Ahlf was unaware that Harrison was an alcoholic, or that he

17 was at risk of alcohol withdrawal. The County argues this lack of awareness precludes Plaintiffs’

18 deliberate indifference claim against Deputy Ahlf.

19

Although Deputy Ahlf was unaware of Harrison’s specific medical condition, Harrison did

20 request medication from him twice, on two separate occasions. Subsequently, based on Harrison’s

21 bizarre behavior, Deputy Ahlf decided to move Harrison to an isolation cell for his safety and the

22 safety of others. Although he started an intensive observation log, Deputy Ahlf admits he did not

23 notify any medical professional or CJMH concerning Harrison’s behavior. Instead, he testified

24 that he notified two of his supervisors that they needed to make the referral when someone

25 returned to the mental health office. Sergeant Shepard does not recall being notified by Deputy

26 Ahlf, and Sergeant Camara has not been deposed in this case.

27

Deputy Ahlf’s failure to refer Harrison to CJMH or Corizon Health appears to have

28 contravened several County policies and practices, and the County’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness 34

1 testified that Harrison’s behavior should have led to a “prompt referral” to CJMH. Had Deputy

2 Ahlf filled out a mental health referral, he would have seen the admonition at the top of the form:

3 “Rule out drug toxicity, alcohol withdrawal, head injury, et cetera, before making a psych

4 referral.” The responsibility to fill out the form was his. Nevertheless, Deputy Ahlf left his shift

5 without having referred Harrison. When Deputy Ahlf returned twelve hours later, Harrison still

6 had not been seen by a medical professional or CJMH.

7

Although it appears that Deputy Ahlf violated a County policy that was in place to deal

8 with Harrison’s precise set of circumstances, Deputy Ahlf’s failures cannot constitute deliberate

9 indifference because he was not subjectively aware that Harrison’s apparent mental illness

10 constituted a serious medical need that could lead to substantial harm. Notably, Harrison

11 displayed only bizarre behavior, not other symptoms of alcohol withdrawal that could have put

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Deputy Ahlf on notice of the severity of his situation.

13

In Gibson, the Ninth Circuit held that a deputy’s awareness of an inmate’s mental

14 condition based on observations of the inmate’s behavior was insufficient to rise to the level of

15 deliberate indifference where the deputy lacked the medical training to diagnose and treat the

16 illness, even though the deputies remarked on the inmate’s “peculiar mood swings” and “dramatic

17 shifts from combativeness to compliance.” The Ninth Circuit noted: “The lapses in

18 communication at the jail are hardly commendable, but the deputies who, because of these lapses,

19 remained unaware of Gibson's mental condition cannot be held liable for having been ‘deliberately

20 indifferent’ to it.” Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1197.

21

The Court could say the same of Deputy Ahlf’s conduct here. After he was screened,

22 Harrison fell through the cracks. Even after he was transferred to an isolation cell, and subject to

23 constant monitoring, no staff member ensured that Harrison had been referred for appropriate care.

24 He remained in an isolation cell for twelve hours without the attention of a medical professional

25 — medical attention he clearly needed. The result of this failure in communication was tragic and

26 unnecessary. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have failed to adduce sufficient evidence from which a

27 reasonable jury could conclude that Deputy Ahlf himself was deliberately indifferent to a serious

28 medical need of which he was subjectively aware. Consequently, the Court will grant summary 35

1 judgment in favor of Deputy Ahlf with respect to Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim.

2

3. Remaining Deputies

3

Plaintiffs no longer assert a deliberate indifference claim against the remaining deputies

4 named in this suit. Consequently, the Court grants summary judgment in their favor with respect

5 to Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claims.

6

4. Megan Hast

7

The crux of Plaintiffs’ claim against Hast is that her delay in evaluating Harrison despite

8 knowing of his serious medical needs went beyond mere negligence.

9

Like Nurse Sancho, and unlike Deputy Ahlf, Megan Hast was aware of Harrison’s risk of

10 withdrawal. Hast learned at 4:00 p.m. on August 16 that Harrison was acting bizarrely, and

11 hallucinating. She reviewed Harrison’s intake form and learned that he was an alcoholic, and

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 formed the subjective belief that Harrison had been initiated on a CIWA protocol. She waited

13 until 4:30 p.m. to call the housing unit, learned that the deputy was leaving at 5:00 p.m., and

14 arrived at the unit after the deputy had left. Instead of calling another deputy so she could

15 examine Harrison, she decided Harrison was stable and returned to her office — a conclusion for

16 which there appears to have been no objective basis. She did not call the housing unit again until

17 6:00 p.m., at which time she learned in more detail the nature of Harrison’s medical condition

18 from Deputy Ahlf. She did not notify any medical professional of Harrison’s condition, and did

19 not visit the housing unit again until after Harrison had been transferred to the hospital.

20

At the time of her deposition, Hast was unable to account for how she spent her time

21 between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., testifying that she “imagined” she was triaging other patients.

22 Though she provides a more detailed account in her declaration in support of the County’s motion

23 for summary judgment, it is undisputed that no other patient presented an emergency in the hours

24 between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. other than Harrison. Hast testified, however, that she believed

25 Harrison was already subject to medical care due to the CIWA notation on his intake form, though

26 she did not find any medical records associated with the protocol, as she would have expected to

27 find had the protocol been initiated, and there is no other evidence in the record that would have

28 made her belief objectively reasonable. 36

1

On this evidence, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could find that Hast was

2 deliberately indifferent to Harrison’s medical needs. She knew that Harrison was at risk for severe

3 alcohol withdrawal, she knew that the condition requires immediate medical attention, and she

4 knew that Harrison was displaying the symptoms of severe alcohol withdrawal. Yet she did not

5 notify a medical professional of Harrison’s condition, or instruct a deputy to do so, or see him

6 herself. Moreover, Plaintiffs have identified inconsistencies in Hast’s testimony, such as her

7 claiming to have spent more time attending to other inmates than actually elapsed, such that a jury

8 might discount or disregard Hast’s explanation of events. Even crediting her version, however,

9 she purposefully chose to see other inmates instead of Harrison, even though she was aware of

10 evidence that Harrison’s situation had become emergent, and even though no other inmate Hast

11 chose to see was at similar medical risk. A reasonable jury would be entitled to conclude that Hast

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 displayed a purposeful failure to respond to a prisoner’s possible medical need, rising to the level

13 of subjective recklessness. Accordingly, the Court will deny summary judgment with regard to

14 Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Hast.

15

5. Qualified Immunity

16

Both Hast and Nurse Sancho argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on

17 Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference to medical needs claims. However, neither defendant argues that

18 Harrison’s right to be free from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs was not

19 clearly established at the time of his death. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 244 (2009).

20 Rather, they argue that Harrison’s constitutional rights were not violated in the first instance.

21 Because the Court has already concluded above that the question of whether there was a violation

22 of Harrison’s rights that that is a question of fact for the jury, the Court will deny Hast and

23 Sancho’s request for qualified immunity.

24

B. Monell Claims

25

A municipality may be held liable under a claim brought under § 1983 only when the

26 municipality inflicts an injury; it may not be held liable under a respondeat superior theory.

27 Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).

28

There are two types of official policies, customs, or patterns that may lead to Monell

37

1 liability: “policies of action and inaction.” Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1143 (9th

2 Cir. 2012). Policies of action are “those that result in the municipality itself violating someone's

3 constitutional rights or instructing its employees to do so.” Id. By contrast, policies of inaction

4 are those that result, through omission, in the municipality’s responsibility “for a constitutional

5 violation committed by one of its employees, even though the municipality's policies were facially

6 constitutional, the municipality did not direct the employee to take the unconstitutional action, and

7 the municipality did not have the state of mind required to prove the underlying violation.”

8 Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1186 (emphasis omitted).

9

“To establish that there is a policy based on a failure to preserve constitutional rights, a

10 plaintiff must show, in addition to a constitutional violation,” that the policy amounts to deliberate

11 indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Tsao, 698 F.3d at 1143. To prove deliberate

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 indifference on the part of a municipality, the plaintiff must show that the municipality was on

13 actual or constructive notice that its omission would likely result in a constitutional violation.

14 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 841.

15

Finally, “[u]nder Monell, a plaintiff must also show that the policy at issue was the

16 ‘actionable cause’ of the constitutional violation, which requires showing both but for and

17 proximate causation.” Tsao, 698 F.3d at 1146. The “identified deficiency” in the municipality’s

18 policies must be “closely related to the ultimate injury.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378,

19 391 (1989).

20

1. Alameda County

21

Plaintiffs assert a Monell claim against Alameda County on the basis of the County’s

22 alleged failure to train Deputy Ahlf and Megan Hast in detecting and treating alcohol withdrawal.

23 To the extent Plaintiffs asserted a Monell claim against the County on the basis of the Sheriff’s

24 Deputies’ use of force, Plaintiffs have abandoned that theory.

25

“In limited circumstances, a local government's decision not to train certain employees

26 about their legal duty to avoid violating citizens' rights may rise to the level of an official

27 government policy for purposes of § 1983. A municipality's culpability for a deprivation of rights

28 is at its most tenuous where a claim turns on a failure to train.” Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 38

1 1350, 1359 (2011). Nevertheless, “[i]n order to comply with their duty not to engage in acts

2 evidencing deliberate indifference to inmates’ medical and psychiatric needs, jails must provide

3 medical staff who are ‘competent to deal with prisoners’ problems.’” Gibson, 290 F.3d 1175,

4 1187 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982)). A failure to

5 train jail staff and police officers may serve as the basis for liability “where the failure to train

6 amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into

7 contact.” Id. (quotation omitted). “The issue is whether the training program is adequate and, if it

8 is not, whether such inadequate training can justifiably be said to represent municipal policy.”

9 Long v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006).

10

“Without notice that a course of training is deficient in a particular respect, decisionmakers

11 can hardly be said to have deliberately chosen a training program that will cause violations of

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 constitutional rights.” Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1360. Consequently, “[a] pattern of similar

13 constitutional violations by untrained employees is ‘ordinarily necessary’ to demonstrate

14 deliberate indifference for purposes of failure to train,” id. (citation omitted), though “[a] plaintiff

15 also might succeed in proving a failure-to-train claim without showing a pattern of constitutional

16 violations where ‘a violation of federal rights may be a highly predictable consequence of a failure

17 to equip law enforcement officers with specific tools to handle recurring situations,’” Long, 442

18 F.3d at 1186 (quoting Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 409 (1997)). In

19 Long, the Ninth Circuit, quoting Brown, observed:

20

The likelihood that the situation will recur and the predictability that

21

an officer lacking specific tools to handle that situation will violate

citizens' rights could justify a finding that policymakers' decision not

22

to train the officer reflected “deliberate indifference” to the obvious

consequence of the policymakers' choice — namely, a violation of a

23

specific constitutional or statutory right.

24 Id. (quoting Brown, 520 U.S. at 409). More recently, the Supreme Court has observed that

25 “single-incident” liability will be appropriate only in “a narrow range of circumstances.” Connick,

26 131 S. Ct. at 1361.

27

The Court has already concluded Deputy Ahlf was not deliberately indifferent to

28 Harrison’s serious medical needs. However, that conclusion does not end the inquiry. In Fairley 39

1 v. Luman, 281 F.3d 913, 915 (9th Cir. 2002), the plaintiff was detained for twelve days because he

2 was mistaken for his twin brother. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the officer defendants,

3 but awarded damages to the plaintiff on his Monell claim against the City of Long Beach. The

4 Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of the city’s motion for a new trial because “a city

5 could be liable under § 1983 for improper training or improper procedure even if the individual

6 officer charged with violating the plaintiff's constitutional rights was exonerated.” Id. at 917

7 (citing Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.2d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If a plaintiff establishes he

8 suffered a constitutional injury by the City, the fact that individual officers are exonerated is

9 immaterial to liability under § 1983.” Id. (emphasis in original). The Ninth Circuit held that the

10 plaintiff had suffered the requisite “constitutional injury” because he “had a liberty interest in

11 being free from a twelve-day incarceration without any procedural safeguard in place to verify the

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 warrant he was detained on was his and in the face of his repeated protests of innocence.” Id. at

13 918. With respect to the city’s culpability, the Ninth Circuit focused on the police chief’s

14 “decision not to instigate any procedures to alleviate the problem of detaining individuals on the

15 wrong warrant,” concluding that it “could constitute a policy in light of his testimony he knew it

16 was ‘not uncommon’ that individuals were arrested on the wrong warrant, and that the problem

17 was particularly acute where twins were involved.” Id. at 919. See Ostling v. City of Bainbridge

18 Island, No. 11-cv-5219-RBL, 2012 WL 4480550 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 28, 2012) (where officers

19 were exonerated of excessive force claim after fatally shooting schizophrenic, municipality could

20 be liable for failure to train officers in dealing with mentally ill suspects).

21

Alameda County’s “Custody Staff Education” training states that “[a]t least 80% of

22 inmates generally have problems with alcohol and/or other drugs.” Sherwin Decl., Ex. 83 at COR

23 3846. Accordingly, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care’s (“NCCHC”)

24 “Standards for Health Services in Jails” requires that correctional officers who work with inmates

25 receive health-related training biennially, including training in recognizing the signs and

26 symptoms of mental illness. The correctional facility must keep a certificate or other evidence of

27 attendance “on site for each employee.” Sherwin Decl., Ex. 43 at 37. Standard J-G-06, regarding

28 intoxication and withdrawal, outlines the dangers of alcohol withdrawal while in custody. The 40

1 standard explains: “Deaths from acute intoxication or severe withdrawal have occurred in

2 correctional institutions . . . . Training for correctional officers includes recognizing the signs and

3 symptoms of intoxication and withdrawal . . . .” Id. at 105.

4

The County’s policies appear to adopt some of these standards. Corizon policy J-G-08,

5 which references NCCHC standard J-G-08 and other standards promulgated by the American

6 Correctional Association (“ACA”), discusses “Inmates with Alcohol and other Drug Problems.”

7 Sherwin Decl., Ex. 45. It states that “[t]he custody staff is trained in recognizing AOD problems

8 in inmates” and that “[t]here is communication and coordination between medical, mental health,

9 and opioid treatment program (NTP) staff regarding AOD care.” Id. The County’s Policy and

10 Procedure 13.01 likewise provides for the training of correctional officers by Corizon in

11 recognizing the signs and symptoms of emotional disturbances and chemical dependency.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Sherwin Decl., Ex. 46.

13

Plaintiffs argue that the County failed adequately to implement these training policies, and

14 they have submitted significant evidence supporting those claims.

15

Dr. Orr testified that “Corizon doesn’t provide a direct training with the -- for the Alameda

16 County Sheriff’s Office,” and its Regional Medical Director is “not certain of what the content of

17 their health care instruction is for the custody staff.” Sherwin Decl., Ex. 15, Orr PMK Dep.

18 101:15–19. Corizon’s Nurse Terri Granlund, who has worked for Corizon for 24 years, testified

19 that she was not aware of any training provided to sheriff’s deputies by Corizon concerning

20 alcohol withdrawal, mental illness, or alcohol dependency. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 35, Granlund Dep.

21 10:2–12:18.

22

Sergeant Cynthia Sass was designated the County’s person most knowledgeable

23 “regarding the training policies and procedures, from 2007 to the present, concerning assessing,

24 examining, treating, or providing care to inmates with possible alcohol withdrawal, detoxification

25 of inmates who are alcohol dependent, preventing alcohol withdrawal in inmates, and handling

26 inmates who are experiencing alcohol withdrawal.” Sherwin Decl., Ex. 48, Sass PMK Dep. 8:3–

27 13. Sergeant Sass characterized the County’s level of training of deputies regarding alcohol

28 withdrawal as “very little.” Id. 17:7. According to Sergeant Sass, the “information is rather 41

1 cursory.” Id. 17:18. The training block dealing with chemical dependency “would last maybe 20

2 minutes,” so Sergeant Sass had difficulty remembering the details of what is covered in the

3 training. Id. 22:14–15. She could not, at her deposition, specifically recall any training deputies

4 receive from Corizon that helps them recognize the signs and symptoms of chemical dependency.

5 Id. 22:20–21. She testified that the County trains deputies in recognizing the signs and symptoms

6 of alcohol withdrawal “cursorily.” Id. 28:20. Sergeant Sass also testified that, though County

7 policy states officers are trained to respond to health-related situations within four minutes, “I

8 don’t know that the four minutes is something that is a training point.” Id. 19:18–19.

9

At her deposition, Megan Hast, who is employed by the County’s Criminal Justice Mental

10 Health office, testified that, since graduate school, she had not received any training regarding 11 recognizing the signs and symptoms of alcohol withdrawal.4 Hast Dep. 14:3–23. Hast was able to 12 recall what Delirium Tremens is from knowledge she gained in her graduate school classes.5 Id.

United States District Court Northern District of California

13 15:9–12.

14

Additionally, Sergeant Sass was unable to recall any policy, procedure, guideline, or

15 training bulletin providing for medical or mental health staff to inform sheriff’s deputies when a

16 person is at risk of alcohol withdrawal. Sass PMK Dep. 34:6–21. Nurse Granlund also testified

17 that there is no mechanism at Santa Rita Jail for informing custody staff that a particular inmate is

18 at risk of going into alcohol withdrawal. Granlund Dep. 21:2–18.

19

This testimony led Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Burns, to conclude that Deputy Ahlf’s inadequate

20 training at the jail resulted in his failure to summon medical or mental health staff, and that the

21 County failed to train jail staff to detect the signs and symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. Dr. Burns

22

23 4 At her deposition, Hast testified that the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal were discussed at staff

24

meetings; she was equivocal about whether the meetings constituted “training.” Hast Depo. 17:121. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could find that

25 these informal staff meetings did not constitute “training” in alcohol withdrawal.

26 5 The Court previously described Hast’s personal knowledge of the symptoms of alcohol
withdrawal and the need for immediate medical attention. The extent of Hast’s personal 27 knowledge, which came from a variety of sources, is a separate question from the adequacy of her

28

training by the County. Also, to the extent that either the facts or Plaintiffs’ theories are in conflict, these conflicts are better resolved by a jury.

42

1 also concluded that the County failed adequately to train CJMH staff, including Hast, in triaging

2 and responding to emergency referrals.

3

The County argues that Deputy Ahlf’s training log demonstrates that he completed several

4 training courses, including an eighty-hour “Jail Operations Core Course” in 2006 and “Continued

5 Professional Training” courses in 2007 and 2009. Deputy Ahlf’s training log confirms that he

6 received these trainings, but does not describe their content. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 44. The outline

7 for the 2009 Continued Professional Training produced by the County includes a section regarding

8 the signs and symptoms of “medical emergencies / sudden illness.” It does not appear to discuss

9 alcohol withdrawal in particular. Ly Decl. ISO County MSJ Reply, ECF No. 159, Ex. V at ACSO

10 1587. A training outline for the “Emergency Action Plan” training Deputy Ahlf received in 2009

11 includes a section on “[s]igns and symptoms of mental illness, violent behavior, and acute

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 chemical intoxication and withdrawal.” Ly Decl., Ex. W at ACSO 1671. Finally, an exam

13 Deputy Ahlf took as part of the eighty-hour course he took in 2006 includes questions about 14 substance abuse and withdrawal. Ly Decl., Ex. X.6

15

The County also characterizes the same portions of Sergeant Sass’ testimony as evidence

16 that the training she described as “cursory” occurred, but Plaintiffs do not dispute that these

17 trainings occurred; they argue the trainings were inadequate.

18

The only other evidence in the record the County points to regarding this issue is the

19 deposition transcript of Deputy Rojas, who testified that he was trained in recognizing the signs of

20 alcohol withdrawal prior to August 16, 2010. Rojas Dep. 56–57. His testimony on this point is

21 superficial.

22

Taking the evidence in the record as a whole, and construing all disputed facts in favor of

23 Plaintiffs, the Court finds that a triable issue remains with respect to the County’s liability for

24

25 6 Plaintiffs object to the County’s reliance on this evidence, submitted in conjunction with the

26 County’s reply brief, because it was not submitted with the County’s opening brief. The Court
overrules the objection; the evidence is within the scope of the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ 27 opposition brief and was available to Plaintiffs prior to the filing of the brief. In any case, because

28

the Court will deny summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ Monell claims against the County, the objection is moot.

43

1 failure adequately to train Deputy Ahlf and Megan Hast, and for failure to adopt or implement

2 policies regarding the communication of medical information between medical and custodial staff.

3

As in Gibson, “a jury could conclude that County policymakers knew that inevitably some

4 prisoners arrive at the jail with urgent health problems requiring hospitalization.” Gibson, 290

5 F.3d at 1190. Here, the County was on notice of the dangers of alcohol withdrawal in inmates, a

6 recurring problem in correctional facilities. Indeed, its own policies appear to provide for training

7 that, a reasonable jury could find, was never provided, or was not provided adequately. See Long,

8 442 F.3d at 1186 (“The issue is whether the training program is adequate and, if it is not, whether

9 such inadequate training can justifiably be said to represent municipal policy.”); Munger v. City of

10 Glasgow Police Dep’t, 227 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding city may be liable for “the

11 failure to train officers regarding appropriate assistance and treatment of intoxicated persons”).

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Plaintiffs may prevail at trial on their failure to train claim without showing a pattern of

13 constitutional violations because a jury may find that the failure to provide Harrison adequate

14 medical care — a constitutional right held by pre-trial detainees — was a “‘highly predictable

15 consequence of a failure to equip law enforcement officers with specific tools to handle recurring

16 situations,’” Long, 442 F.3d at 1186 (quoting Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S.

17 397, 409 (1997)).

18

Finally, a reasonable jury could conclude that the County’s policy and practice failures

19 were the “actionable cause” of, or “moving force” behind, the County’s failure to provide

20 adequate medical care to Harrison. Tsao, 698 F.3d at 1146. As discussed above, there were

21 several opportunities for County personnel to prevent the onset of Delirium Tremens, or, at a

22 minimum, to detect its onset, provide adequate treatment, and transfer Harrison to a hospital in

23 compliance with national and County standards.

24

For these reasons, the Court will deny the County’s motion for summary judgment with

25 respect to Plaintiffs’ Monell claims against it arising out of its training concerning alcohol

26 withdrawal. Because Plaintiffs have abandoned the theory, the Court will grant summary

27 judgment to the extent Plaintiffs assert a Monell claim against the County premised on the use of

28 force by the Sheriff’s Deputies against Harrison. 44

United States District Court Northern District of California

2. Corizon Health 1
A plaintiff may assert Monell claims against a private entity contracting with a 2
municipality provided the private entity (1) “acted under color of state law, [] (2) [] a 3
constitutional violation occurred, [and (3)] the violation was caused by an official policy or 4
custom . . . .” Tsao, 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012). Corizon Health does not dispute the 5
first element, but argues that Plaintiffs have failed to adduce sufficient evidence concerning 6
constitutional violations and policies or customs that led to the alleged violations. 7
Plaintiffs point to a number of national standards and Corizon policies that Plaintiffs 8
maintain were not implemented, or were implemented in an unsatisfactory manner, by Corizon, as 9
the basis of their Monell claim. 10
As discussed above, NCCHC and ACA standards require that correctional officers who 11
work with inmates receive health-related training biennially, including training in recognizing the 12
signs and symptoms of mental illness. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 43 at 37. The County appears to have 13
attempted to implement some of these standards through the adoption of certain policies. Corizon 14
policy J-G-08, which references NCCHC standard J-G-08 and other standards promulgated by the 15
American Correctional Association (“ACA”), discusses “Inmates with Alcohol and other Drug 16
Problems.” Sherwin Decl., Ex. 45. It states that “[t]he custody staff is trained in recognizing 17
AOD problems in inmates” and that “[t]here is communication and coordination between medical, 18
mental health, and opioid treatment program (NTP) staff regarding AOD care.” Id. The County’s 19
Policy and Procedure 13.01 likewise provides for the training of correctional officers by Corizon 20
in recognizing the signs and symptoms of emotional disturbances and chemical dependency. 21
Sherwin Decl., Ex. 46. 22
As previously noted, Dr. Orr testified that “Corizon doesn’t provide a direct training with 23
the -- for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office” and is “not certain of what the content of their 24
health care instruction is for the custody staff,” and Nurse Granlund testified that she was not 25
aware of any training provided to Sheriff’s deputies by Corizon concerning alcohol withdrawal, 26
mental illness, or alcohol dependency. See Part VII.B.1., supra. Nurse Granlund also testified 27
that she was not aware of any Corizon policy or mechanism for informing custody staff to check 28
45

1 for signs and symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. Id. 21:9–13.

2

The same NCCHC standards also require the screening of inmates on all intra-system

3 transfers by a qualified healthcare professional within twelve hours of arrival to ensure continuity

4 of care. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 43 at 63 (Standard J-E-03). The relevant standard states that it is

5 “intended to ensure that inmates continue to receive appropriate health services for health needs

6 already identified . . . .” Id. at 64. Corizon Policy J-E-03 implements this standard, though it

7 provides that if an inmate is transferred “within a short timeframe from the date of initial

8 screening” the initial screening will suffice. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 50. There is no evidence that

9 Harrison received such a screening after his transfer to Santa Rita Jail. Nurse Sancho’s supervisor,

10 Lenore Gilbert, testified that the exception in the Corizon policy for transfer shortly after initial

11 screening would have applied to Harrison. Gilbert PMK Dep. 107:11–25. She also testified that

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 post-transfer review is generally limited to a review for the physical presence of the required

13 forms in the medical file. Id. 105:19–106:13.

14

NCCHC Standard J-G-06 sets out protocols for inmates undergoing alcohol withdrawal. It

15 provides that detoxification is “done only under physician supervision . . . .” There is no evidence

16 that Harrison’s withdrawal was monitored by a physician.

17

The Standard further requires that “[i]nmates experiencing severe, life-threatening

18 intoxication (overdose) or withdrawal are transferred immediately to a licensed acute care

19 facility.” Inmates at risk for progression to more severe levels of withdrawal must be “kept under

20 constant observation by qualified health care professionals or health-trained correctional staff, and

21 whenever severe withdrawal symptoms are observed, a physician is consulted promptly.” In the

22 discussion section, Standard J-G-06 states: “As a precaution, severe withdrawal syndromes must

23 never be managed outside of a hospital.” Corizon Policy No. 153 provides that detoxification

24 shall be carried out on site, and that all inmates demonstrating signs and symptoms of alcohol

25 withdrawal be seen by a physician. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 44. The policy provides that patients with

26 severe, life-threatening alcohol withdrawal be transferred to a hospital immediately. Id.

27

Dr. Orr’s testimony on this point is contradictory. He testified that severe alcohol

28 withdrawal is managed in the jail. Orr PMK Dep. 70:15–19. However, he also testified that 46

1 Corizon would transfer an inmate with Delirium Tremens to a hospital, but that the management

2 would continue in the jail if the patient is eating and taking medication. Id. 71–73. Such an

3 inmate would be monitored for improvement. Dr. Orr also testified that he may have transferred

4 Harrison to a hospital when he was exhibiting severe alcohol withdrawal, but that Corizon policy

5 does not require it. Id. 74–75. Nurse Granlund testified that an inmate in severe alcohol

6 withdrawal or Delirium Tremens would “not necessarily” be transferred to a hospital. Granlund

7 Dep. 27:1–4. She testified that inmates in the past suffering from severe alcohol withdrawal or

8 Delirium Tremens have not been transferred to a hospital. Id. 27:10–13.

9

The Corizon policy also requires that inmates undergoing alcohol withdrawal be kept

10 under “constant observation.” Dr. Orr testified that Corizon complies with this policy because

11 inmates undergoing alcohol withdrawal are seen by a nurse once in every eight-hour shift, or three

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 times a day. Orr PMK Dep. 162:9–15.

13

Finally, Corizon’s contract with the County requires that screenings be performed for all

14 inmates “by a licensed registered nurse (RN) or a licensed vocational nurse under the supervision

15 of an RN . . . .” Sherwin Decl., Ex. 39 (original emphasis). The County’s NCCHC accreditation

16 report from June 2008 states that “[t]rained registered nurses complete receiving screening.”

17 Sherwin Decl., Ex. 41 at COR 4333. Nurse Sancho is a licensed vocational nurse, but not a

18 registered nurse; she failed the registered nurse’s examination twice. Sancho Dep. 17:12–21:19.

19 Ms. Gilbert testified that “it could be possible that [at] Glenn Dyer an LVN would be working in

20 booking. It could be possible on another Friday night that an RN is working. It just depends on

21 the specific scheduling of the supervisor at that time.” Gilbert PMK Dep. 146:4–9. However,

22 “there was an RN present in the facility that was available to work with that LVN as needed at all

23 times.” Id. 146:12–19. That RN, the charge nurse, may be responsible for over a dozen staff in

24 the entire facility, and may never enter the booking area during a given shift. Id. 147:11–148:21.

25

Corizon’s responses to Plaintiffs’ allegations provide merely a different gloss on the same

26 evidence. For example, Corizon argues that the charge nurse supervision is medically adequate.

27 Corizon also argues that Plaintiffs cannot prove causation because, for example, had Sancho been

28 supervised directly by a registered nurse, Plaintiffs cannot prove that the screening would have 47

1 resulted in a different outcome, and that Plaintiffs cannot prove that a chart review after Harrison

2 was transferred to Santa Rita Jail would have resulted in identification of Sancho’s errors.

3

These arguments overstate Plaintiffs’ burden on summary judgment, which Plaintiffs have

4 met.

5

First, it is not clear that any affirmative causation evidence is even required — in this case,

6 Corizon’s own policies, as reflected in its contract with the County and the County’s NCCHC

7 accreditation report, were obviously designed to guard against exactly the chain of events that

8 transpired here. As the Ninth Circuit has said on similar facts, “[a]n evaluation by a trained

9 medical staff member surely would have revealed [the decedent’s] condition.” Gibson, 290 F.3d

10 at 1189–90.

11

Second, Corizon’s own witnesses have provided sufficient evidence from which a jury

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 could reasonably conclude that Corizon’s failure to supervise Sancho was a substantial factor in

13 causing Harrison’s death. Bill Wilson, Corizon’s Health Services Administrator, described

14 Sancho’s intake as “an egregious breach of medical care,” Sherwin Decl., Ex. 34 at 178, that “the

15 intake screening is a minimum data set of what every professional is expected to gather,” id., and

16 that Sancho’s failure to perform an adequate screening “without a doubt” jeopardized Harrison’s

17 safety. Id. at 181. A reasonable jury could conclude that supervision by a properly trained

18 registered nurse would more probably than not have avoided the lack of diagnosis and failure to

19 provide medical care that Plaintiffs contend led to Harrison’s death.

20

For these reasons, and construing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the

21 Court will deny summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Monell claim against Corizon based on 22 Corizon’s allegedly deliberately indifferent policies and practices.7

23

7 By contrast, Plaintiffs’ Monell claim against Corizon for its hiring and retention of Nurse Sancho 24 does not present a triable issue of fact for the jury. A hiring and retention claim, or “inadequate

25 screening” claim, must be subjected to “rigorous standards of culpability and causation . . . to ensure that the municipality is not held liable solely for the actions of its employee.” Bd. of Cnty.

26 Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 405 (1997). In Brown, the Supreme Court

rejected the equivalent treatment of inadequate screening cases and failure to train cases. There, 27 even a failure to inquire into the prior misdemeanor charges against an officer who ultimately used

28

excessive force could not constitute deliberate indifference absent further facts linking the city’s inadequate screening to the injury. A finding of deliberate indifference in an inadequate screening

48

C. Supervisory Liability — Dr. Orr 1
The Ninth Circuit has “long permitted plaintiffs to hold supervisors individually liable in 2
§ 1983 suits when culpable action, or inaction, is directly attributed to them.” Starr v. Baca, 652 3
F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. den’d, 132 S. Ct. 2102 (2012). The supervisor need not be 4
“physically present when the injury occurred.” Id. Supervisory liability may attach based on the 5
supervisor’s “‘own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his 6
subordinates,’ ‘his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations of which the complaint is 7
made,’ or ‘conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.’” Id. at 8
1205–06 (quoting Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9
At the time of Harrison’s death, Dr. Orr was Corizon’s Regional Medical Director; he 10
oversaw Corizon’s operations at all Alameda County jails. Orr PMK Dep. 14:19–16:18. He was 11
responsible for policymaking at Corizon. He testified that he was responsible for ensuring that 12
Corizon’s policies were followed, and making changes in Corizon policy. Id. at 21:11–21. Dr. 13
Orr testified there is no Corizon Health employee more senior than he is with respect to 14
policymaking in Alameda County jails, though the Alameda County Public Health Department has 15
authority to implement policy changes as well, over his objections. Id. at 23. 16
In light of the factual basis for Plaintiffs’ Monell claim against Corizon, discussed above, 17
Dr. Orr seeks summary judgment for the same reasons Corizon does. Those arguments are 18
unavailing. As Corizon’s Regional Medical Director, and given his responsibilities to ensure that 19
Corizon’s existing policies were followed and that changes in those policies were made when 20
necessary, Dr. Orr had ultimate responsibility for avoiding the failures which Plaintiffs allege 21
occurred at Glenn Dyer Detention Facility and Santa Rita Jail. Dr. Orr was on actual notice of the 22

United States District Court Northern District of California

23

24

case “must depend on a finding that this officer was highly likely to inflict the particular injury suffered by the plaintiff.” Id. at 412.

25 Here, Plaintiffs’ inadequate screening claim is premised almost exclusively on Sancho’s conduct
26 toward Harrison and the fact that she had previously failed the registered nurse’s exam twice. Pursuant to Brown, that evidence is insufficient to present the claim to a jury.
27

28

However, the Court must nevertheless deny summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ Monell claim against Corizon for the reasons stated above.

49

1 dangers associated with improper screening, lack of training, and lack of adequate medical care for

2 inmates suffering from severe alcohol withdrawal, as the national standards and Corizon policies

3 evidence. And Corizon’s alleged failures to alter the policies or their implementation are

4 attributable to him. A reasonable jury may find that Dr. Orr was aware of the failure to implement

5 policies Corizon and the NCCHC adopted, that he ratified or caused the failure, and that his

6 inaction and omissions amounted to deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of

7 inmates in Harrison’s circumstances. See, e.g., Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir.

8 2002) (denial of summary judgment on supervisory liability claim was appropriate where

9 supervisors “failed to institute adequate prison policies for minimizing the effects of pepper spray

10 on bystander inmates”).

11

The Court will deny the motion to grant summary judgment in Dr. Orr’s favor with respect

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 to the supervisory liability claims.

13

D. Excessive Force

14

The Constitution protects pre-trial detainees from use of force that amounts to punishment.

15 Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1197 (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989)). Determining

16 whether an officer’s use of force was reasonable “requires a careful balancing of the nature and

17 quality of the intrusion on the individual's interests against the countervailing government interests

18 at stake.” Id. (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396). The analysis requires “careful attention to the

19 facts and circumstances in each particular case, including [1] the severity of the crime at issue, [2]

20 whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and [3]

21 whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Graham, 490 U.S.

22 at 396. In Graham, the Supreme Court advised courts to examine the circumstances underlying an 23 excessive force claim from the viewpoint of a reasonable8 officer on the scene “rather than with

24 the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. Police officers “are not required to use the least intrusive

25

26 8 At oral argument, the County urged the Court to take into account the Sheriff’s Deputies’ intent
in this case with respect to Plaintiffs’ excessive force claims, but “the question is whether the 27 officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting

28

them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Lolli, 351 F.3d at 415 (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 397).

50

1 degree of force possible.” Rather, “the inquiry is whether the force that was used to effect a

2 particular seizure was reasonable.” Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir.

3 1994).

4

Because it is so dependent on determinations of fact and credibility, whether excessive

5 force has been used is ordinarily a question of fact reserved for the jury. Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d

6 846, 853 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because [the excessive force inquiry] nearly always requires a jury to

7 sift through disputed factual contentions, and to draw inferences therefrom, we have held on many

8 occasions that summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law in excessive force cases should

9 be granted sparingly.”); Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 701 (9th Cir. 2005) (“This is

10 because such cases almost always turn on a jury's credibility determinations.”)

11

1. Deputy Ahlf

12

The County relies heavily on Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, supra, in arguing that the

United States District Court Northern District of California

13 evidence in this case is insufficient to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that any deputy used

14 excessive force. In Gibson, a manic inmate fought violently with officers as he was transferred to

15 a special watch cell. “[O]nce the deputies began to restrain Gibson and move him to the special

16 watch cell, he fought back vigorously. No more than three minutes passed from the time the

17 deputies brought Gibson into the special watch cell and his death. During that time, Gibson was

18 fighting hard against the deputies’ efforts to restrain him, creating precisely the kind of situation in

19 which officers must make split-second decisions.” Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1198.

20

During the struggle, the inmate “assumed a fighting stance with his fists up and shouted

21 obscenities” at the officers. Id. at 1182. The officers decided to move the inmate to the special

22 watch cell. One officer pepper-sprayed the inmate while others attempted to control him and hold

23 him down. In one officer’s words:

24

We put him on his stomach. And he was still at this point kicking

and screaming and fighting and everything and yelling at us and he

25

was, for being pepper sprayed twice . . . this guy had an incredible

amount of fight in him. I mean just huge amount of fight ‘cause

26

here were are, at this time, I don't remember how many deputies

were on him, but I was trying to control his head, his left shoulder

27

blade, his left forearm, and I remember Deputy Cloud was right to

my right on his back and he like jumped, I mean lifted himself off

28

the bed . . . I mean, this guy was fighting.

51

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Id. at 1183. Although Gibson ultimately died of a heart attack related to this manic episode and
2 struggle, the Ninth Circuit concluded that, “[u]nder all the circumstances, the deputies’ decisions
3 under these difficult circumstances resulted in restraining Gibson no more forcefully than was
4 reasonably necessary.” Id. at 1198.
5 The present case is distinguishable from Gibson in several important respects.
6 First, “where there is no need for force, any force used is constitutionally unreasonable.”
7 Lolli v. Cnty. of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 417 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (quoting Headwaters
8 Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1132 n.5 (9th Cir. 2000)). “[I]t is the need for
9 force which is at the heart of the consideration of the Graham factors.” Alexander v. City & Cnty.
10 of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1367 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, Harrison was secure in his cell at the
11 time Deputy Ahlf decided to move him. Unlike the inmate in Gibson, Harrison was not
12 attempting to harm an officer or otherwise committing a crime. Though Harrison had flooded his
13 cell and broken a food tray, he did not, at the time Deputy Ahlf opened the cell door, pose “an
14 immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Nor was he
15 “actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id.
16 Given these facts, Deputy Ahlf’s supervisors questioned his “lapse in judgment” in
17 attempting to move Harrison, who was obviously mentally ill, without backup, and without
18 handcuffing Harrison through the port in the cell door. While attempting to handcuff Harrison,
19 Deputy Ahlf pushed Harrison into the cell based on Harrison’s “unsettling, blank stare.” As
20 Harrison moved back toward Deputy Ahlf, the deputy discharged his Taser. Viewed in the light
21 most favorable to Plaintiffs, the evidence suggests that even then, Harrison may not have been
22 attempting to hurt the deputy, but rather ran out of the cell and slipped, falling to the ground. The
23 evidence also suggests Deputy Ahlf deployed his Taser a second time. Deputy Ahlf cannot
24 account for the Taser log, and cannot explain what happened in the intervening seconds that
25 caused him to fire his Taser a second time. Plaintiffs’ police practices expert concludes that
26 Deputy Ahlf’s conduct was the cause of the ensuing injuries Harrison suffered.
27 Taken as a whole, Plaintiffs’ evidence undermines Deputy Ahlf’s account of how the
28
52

1 altercation began. Thus, unlike the inmate in Gibson, a jury could conclude Deputy Ahlf was at

2 fault for the succeeding events, and that Harrison did not initiate the altercation. In addition,

3 Harrison had a second opportunity to avoid the encounter by closing the cell door after pushing

4 Harrison into the cell and calling for backup. No such opportunity presented itself in Gibson.

5

Second, unlike with the inmate in Gibson, no evidence in this case suggests that Harrison

6 actually fought, though he apparently resisted vigorously. Nor is there evidence of any harm to

7 any of the officers caused by Harrison. The need for force in such a situation is necessarily lower

8 than the need in a situation where the inmate is actively and violently fighting an officer.

9

Third, “[t]he problems posed by, and thus the tactics to be employed against, an unarmed,

10 emotionally distraught individual who is creating a disturbance or resisting arrest are ordinarily

11 different from those involved in law enforcement efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 criminal who has recently committed a serious offense. In the former instance, increasing the use

13 of force may, in some circumstances at least, exacerbate the situation; in the latter, a heightened

14 use of less-than-lethal force will usually be helpful in bringing a dangerous situation to a swift

15 end.” Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1282–83 (9th Cir. 2001). For this reason, the Ninth

16 Circuit “emphasize[s] that where it is or should be apparent to the officers that the individual

17 involved is emotionally disturbed, that is a factor that must be considered in determining,

18 under Graham, the reasonableness of the force employed.” Id. Deputy Ahlf had already been

19 acquainted with Harrison, knew he was mentally ill, and discussed his mental state with Hast prior 20 to the altercation.9 These facts weigh against granting summary judgment.

21

Fourth, the quantum of force used was not at issue in Gibson. The Ninth Circuit’s Gibson

22 decision does not indicate that any deputy struck the inmate, much less used the level of force at

23 issue here. In this case, there is significant contradictory evidence concerning which deputies

24

25 9 Like Harrison, Gibson was also unarmed and mentally ill when he was taken into custody.
26 Unlike Harrison, however, he not only fought with officers both during and after his arrest, but he had been pointing a gun and twirling a large knife in the events before his arrest, and he had
27 threatened his wife. Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1180–81.
28
53

1 struck Harrison, how many times, and how hard. Indeed, Plaintiffs maintain that the deputies’

2 testimony does not account for all the injuries contained in Harrison’s autopsy report. Plaintiffs’

3 expert, John Ryan, concluded that Deputy Ahlf used excessive force even before other deputies

4 arrived because the use of the Taser and “hard hand” blows exceeded the amount of force Deputy

5 Ahlf needed to use to control Harrison.

6

The County also argues that the deputies could not have caused Harrison’s death, and

7 therefore Harrison did not suffer damages from the deputies’ use of force. Force is not required to

8 be lethal to qualify as excessive. If Plaintiffs can establish at trial that the deputies used excessive

9 force, the question of whether the force led to Harrison’s death or merely to some of his injuries

10 will be a question of fact for the jury.

11

For these reasons, the Court concludes that summary judgment must be denied with

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 respect to Plaintiffs’ excessive force claims against Deputy Ahlf. A reasonable jury could

13 conclude that the quantum of force used was objectively unreasonable and that the force was

14 unnecessary, and therefore unconstitutional.

15

2. The Remaining Deputies

16

The County argues that none of the remaining Sheriff’s Deputies can be liable for

17 excessive force because no deputy can be liable for the force used by another, and no single

18 deputy employed objectively unreasonable force. Taken to its logical conclusion, the County’s

19 argument suggests that, no matter the quantum of the total force used against Harrison, no single

20 deputy could ever be liable for it.

21

It is true that an officer must be an “integral participant” in the violation. Boyd v. Benton

22 Cnty., 374 F.3d 773, 780 (9th Cir. 2004) (officers were integral participants in use of excessive

23 force where they provided armed backup to officer who unconstitutionally deployed flash-bang,

24 were “aware of the decision to use the flash-bang, did not object to it, and participated in the

25 search operation knowing the flash-bang was to be deployed”). But Plaintiffs are not required to

26 allocate evidence of each individual deputy’s participation in the manner Defendants claim.

27

The Lolli decision, supra, is instructive. In that case, the plaintiff was beaten by several

28 officers. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff did not need to identify “precisely which officer 54

1 delivered which alleged blow or use of force” because the plaintiff had “developed and presented

2 sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the individual officers who had physical

3 contact with Lolli participated in the alleged beating.” Lolli, 351 F.3d at 417.

4

The same rule applies here. As in Lolli, Plaintiffs have “developed and presented

5 sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the individual officers who had physical

6 contact with [Harrison] participated in the alleged beating.” Id. Nothing more is required for

7 summary judgment to be denied.

8

On this record, Plaintiffs are also entitled to argue that deputies who were present had a

9 duty to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force against Harrison, even if not all of them

10 integrally participated in the application of force. “[P]olice officers have a duty to intercede when

11 their fellow officers violate the constitutional rights of a suspect or other citizen.” United States v.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1447 n.25 (9th Cir. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 518 U.S. 81 (1996).

13 “[O]fficers can be held liable for failing to intercede only if they had an opportunity to intercede.”

14 Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1289 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding officers did not have a

15 “realistic opportunity” to intervene because they were not present at the time of the shooting).

16 Liability for failure to intervene may extend to officers who did not take any affirmative action to

17 contribute to the excessive force. See Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995).

18 For example, in Lolli, a sergeant “admitted that he observed the deputies struggling with Lolli, but

19 he did not become involved or give orders.” 351 F.3d at 418. The Ninth Circuit held that the

20 sergeant was not entitled to summary judgment because the evidence could support a claim that he

21 failed to intervene.

22

Here, the County argues only that no deputy testified to seeing any force that was

23 unreasonable or excessive, and that certain deputies used less force than could amount to

24 excessive force; therefore, argues the County, a failure to intervene claim cannot survive. These

25 arguments must be decided by a jury. Each deputy was present at some point during the

26 altercation, and each deputy admits, at a minimum, to participating in the effort to control Harrison

27 by touching him in some way, though with different amounts of force or compliance techniques.

28 Thus, Plaintiffs’ failure to intervene claim with respect to each deputy is sufficient to survive 55

1 summary judgment. The questions of when each deputy arrived, what each deputy witnessed,

2 whether there was a violation of Harrison’s constitutional rights, and whether each deputy either

3 failed to intervene in, or was an integral participant in the violation of Harrison’s rights are

4 questions for the trier of fact.

5

3. Qualified Immunity

6

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that “shield[s] an officer from personal

7 liability when an officer reasonably believes that his or her conduct complies with the law.”

8 Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 244 (2009). Courts utilize a two-step analysis to determine

9 whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity. “First, a court must decide whether the facts

10 that a plaintiff has alleged . . . or shown . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right.” Id. at

11 232. The Court has already determined, as discussed above, that, taking Plaintiffs’ allegations and

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, they have established the violation of a constitutional

13 right.

14

“Second, if the plaintiff has satisfied this first step, the court must decide whether the right

15 at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.” Id. To be a

16 clearly established constitutional right, a right must be sufficiently clear “that every reasonable

17 official would [have understood] that what he is doing violates that right.” Reichle v. Howards,

18 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs “bear[] the

19 burden of proving that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the

20 official’s allegedly impermissible conduct.” Camarillo v. McCarthy, 998 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir.

21 1993).

22

The Court finds that the Sheriff’s Deputies are not entitled to qualified immunity in this

23 case for their alleged use of excessive force. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lolli is again,

24 instructive. There, after concluding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to show

25 that the extent of force used was excessive, the Ninth Circuit rejected the officers’ qualified

26 immunity argument “[b]ecause of the factual disputes that Lolli has identified.” Lolli, 351 F.3d at

27 421. Like in Lolli, the core issue for Plaintiffs’ excessive force claim is a factual determination of

28 the extent of force that was used, and whether that amount of force was excessive given the 56

1 circumstances. In such situations, a determination on qualified immunity will rarely be

2 appropriate at summary judgment, particularly where the force involved traditional forms of force,

3 i.e. striking and compliance techniques. See Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846, 855 (9th Cir. 2002)

4 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 205 (2001)) (“[W]hether the officers may be said to have

5 made a ‘reasonable mistake’ of fact or law, may depend on the jury's resolution of disputed facts

6 and the inferences it draws therefrom. Until the jury makes those decisions, we cannot know, for

7 example, how much force was used, and, thus, whether a reasonable officer could have mistakenly

8 believed that the use of that degree of force was lawful.”); Walker v. Jones, No. 08-cv-0757-CRB,

9 2010 WL 3702659 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2010) (“Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to

10 plaintiff, it cannot be said that a reasonable officer in defendants' position would have believed

11 that hitting, kicking and stepping on plaintiff's face after he was handcuffed was reasonably

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 necessary to maintain discipline and order.”); Rosenblatt v. City of Hillsborough, No. 12-cv-

13 05210-LB, 2013 WL 6001346, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013) (officers were not entitled to

14 qualified immunity for use of excessive force because “the issues of disputed fact preclude a

15 determination at this point” on qualified immunity, and “Defendants’ argument relies on their

16 version of the facts”); McCloskey v. Courtnier, No. 05-cv-4641-MMC, 2012 WL 646219, at *3

17 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2012) (“[B]ecause the facts relevant to the issue of qualified immunity are

18 inextricably intertwined with the disputed facts relevant to the issue of excessive force, defendants

19 are not entitled to summary adjudication on the issue of qualified immunity. “).

20

The County’s reliance on Ninth Circuit decisions finding qualified immunity for the use of

21 a Taser is unavailing. The County’s argument depends on separating the use of Tasers from the

22 rest of the altercation. But Plaintiffs premise their excessive force claim here on the combination

23 of the different types of force used in this case, not simply the use of Tasers, and it is the “totality

24 of force” that must be evaluated in an excessive force case. Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d at

25 703. The County’s authorities are therefore inapposite.

26

For these reasons, the Court cannot conclude at this juncture that the Sheriff’s Deputies are

27 entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ excessive force claim.

28 57

United States District Court Northern District of California

E. Loss of Familial Association 1
1. Excessive Force 2
Plaintiffs assert against each Sheriff’s Deputy a claim for violation of their Fourteenth 3
Amendment right to be free from interference with their relationship with their father. That claim 4
is premised on the same facts as Plaintiffs’ excessive force claim.10 Despite the County’s 5
arguments to the contrary, “the law in this circuit is quite clear: a child has a substantive due 6
process right in her relationship with her parents which may be vindicated through a Section 1983 7
action.” Ovando v. City of Los Angeles, 92 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1018 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (citing 8
Smith v. City of Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411, 1420 (9th Cir. 1987) overruled on other grounds by 9
Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999)). 10
However, the Fourteenth Amendment inquiry is distinct from a Fourth Amendment 11
excessive force claim. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “only official conduct that ‘shocks the 12
conscience’ is cognizable as a due process violation.” Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th 13
Cir. 2008). “Where actual deliberation is practical, then an officer's ‘deliberate indifference’ may 14
suffice to shock the conscience.” Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010). “On the 15
other hand, where a law enforcement officer makes a snap judgment because of an escalating 16
situation, his conduct may only be found to shock the conscience if he acts with a purpose to harm 17
unrelated to legitimate law enforcement objectives.” Id. 18
Here, the parties agree the “purpose to harm” standard applies with respect to the force 19
used by the Sheriff’s Deputies. In an excessive force case, a purpose to harm is “‘the intent to 20
inflict force beyond that which is required by a legitimate law enforcement objective.’” Porter, 21
546 F.3d at 1140. Here, because the facts are in dispute regarding the events of August 16, 2013, 22
the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the Sheriff’s Deputies did not act with a 23
“purpose to harm.” Based on the material disputes of fact concerning the extent of force used, the 24
credibility of the Sheriff’s Deputies’ testimony, the nature of Harrison’s injuries, the degree to 25

26 10 The Court does not address Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim
27 against the Sheriff’s Deputies as a basis for their Fourteenth Amendment familial association

28

claim, as the Court has already concluded as a matter of law that judgment must enter in favor of Defendants on that claim.

58

1 which the force was necessary, and the degree to which Deputy Ahlf was responsible for the

2 unnecessary use of force, and construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the

3 Court concludes that a trier of fact could find that the use of force was both constitutionally

4 excessive and inflicted with a purpose to harm. See, e.g., Dorger v. City of Napa, No. 12-cv-

5 00440-WHO, 2013 WL 5804544, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013).

6

Further, the same disputes of material fact preclude the Court from finding that the

7 Sheriff’s Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, as the “intent to inflict force beyond that

8 which is required by a legitimate law enforcement objective” would constitute a clearly

9 established violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

10

2. Deliberate Indifference

11

The standard that applies to Plaintiffs’ familial association claim against the Sheriff’s

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Deputies for their use of force is different than that which applies to Plaintiffs’ claim against Hast

13 and Nurse Sancho premised on their alleged deliberate indifference to Harrison’s serious medical

14 needs. Unlike the “purpose to harm” standard that governs Fourteenth Amendment claims where

15 an official “makes a snap judgment because of an escalating situation,” Wilkinson, 610 F.3d at

16 554, where “actual deliberation is practical,” deliberate indifference is sufficient to support a

17 Fourteenth Amendment claim. Id. The Supreme Court has contrasted, for example, an officer’s

18 decision to give chase to a fleeing suspect with “the luxury enjoyed by prison officials of having

19 time to make unhurried judgments, upon the chance for repeated reflection, largely uncomplicated

20 by the pulls of competing obligations.” Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 853 (1998)

21 (holding “purpose to harm” standard applied to high-speed police chase); see also Porter, 546 F.3d

22 at 1139 (citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 684 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting “where

23 officers have ample time to correct their obviously mistaken detention of the wrong individual, but

24 nonetheless fail to do so, the suspect's family members need only plead deliberate indifference to

25 state a claim under the due process right to familial association”).

26

The Court concludes that the “deliberate indifference” standard applies to Plaintiffs’

27 familial association claims against Defendants Hast and Sancho. Because the Court has already

28 concluded that Plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence to deny summary judgment on their 59

1 deliberate indifference claims, the Court will deny summary judgment as to their familial

2 association claim as well.

3

3. Qualified Immunity

4

Defendants’ arguments concerning qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ familial association

5 claim echo their arguments concerning the underlying conduct challenged by Plaintiffs. No

6 Defendant makes a distinct argument concerning whether the alleged violation of Plaintiffs’ rights

7 was prohibited by clearly established law. For this reason, the Court will deny qualified immunity

8 with respect to Plaintiffs’ familial association claims against the Sheriff’s Deputies arising out of

9 the use of force and against Hast and Sancho arising out of deliberate indifference to Harrison’s

10 serious medical needs.

11

F. Bane Act, California Civil Code Section 52.1

12

Each Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of

United States District Court Northern District of California

13 California’s Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. The Bane Act provides a private right of action for

14 damages against any person, whether acting under color of law or not, who interferes or attempts

15 to interfere “by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual

16 or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights

17 secured by the Constitution or laws” of California.

18

The County argues that Plaintiffs have not adduced sufficient evidence to establish an

19 excessive force claim, and therefore no Bane Act violation may follow. As the Court has already

20 discussed, Plaintiffs have established a triable issue of fact with respect to the excessive force

21 claims against each of the Sheriff’s Deputies. The Court will deny the County’s motion for 22 summary judgment on that ground.11

23

11 The County also suggests that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert a Bane Act claim because the 24 Bane Act “is simply not a wrongful death provision.” County MSJ at 41(quoting Bay Area Rapid

25 Transit Dist. v.Super. Ct., 38 Cal. App. 4th 141 (1995)). The Court does not understand Plaintiffs to have asserted a Bane Act claim for injuries they sustained, but rather, for the injuries sustained

26 by the decedent Harrison as his heirs, pursuant to California’s survival statute. See Cal. Code Civ.

P. § 377.20. A survival Bane Act claim, unlike a wrongful death Bane Act claim, is permissible. 27 Dela Torre v. City of Salinas, No. 09-cv-00626-RMW, 2010 WL 3743762, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept.

28

17, 2010); Medrano v. Kern Cnty. Sheriff's Officer, 921 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1016 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (citing cases).

60

1

The Corizon Defendants and Sancho argue that none of them interfered or attempted to

2 interfere with Mr. Harrison’s rights “by threats, intimidation or coercion” as required by the Bane 3 Act.12 Sancho’s motion appears to disregard this Court’s prior ruling that deliberate indifference

4 to an inmate’s medical needs is adequate to satisfy the “threats, intimidation, or coercion”

5 requirement of the Bane Act. ECF No. 76. Corizon acknowledges the Court’s prior ruling, ECF

6 No. 134 at 9, but argues that Plaintiffs have failed to introduce adequate evidence of deliberate

7 indifference. Id.

8

Because the Court has already concluded that Plaintiffs are entitled to present their

9 deliberate indifference claims to a jury, and for the reasons set forth in its prior order, ECF No. 76,

10 the Court will deny the Corizon Defendants’ and Sancho’s motions for summary judgment as to 11 Plaintiffs’ Bane Act claims.13 For the same reasons, the Court will deny summary judgment on

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Plaintiffs’ Bane Act claim against Defendant Hast.

13

G. Negligence, Assault, and Battery as to the County Defendants

14

In their opposition to the County’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs premise their

15 negligence claim against the County Defendants solely on the allegedly excessive force used by

16 the Sheriff’s Deputies.

17

To establish the negligence of a police officer under California law, a plaintiff must

18 demonstrate that (1) the officer owed the plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the officer breached the duty

19 by failing to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly

20

21 12 The Corizon Defendants make the additional argument that Plaintiffs’ Bane Act claim is
22 untimely, because it was brought more than two years after Harrison’s injury. Judge Wilken rejected Defendants' arguments that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations when she
23 granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend on November 12, 2012. ECF No. 45. The Court declines to
24 revisit its prior ruling on this point.

25 13 Defendants point to the Court’s order granting summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Bane Act claim in Ashley v. Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 12-cv-00045-JST, 2013 WL 6185523, at *11 (N.D.

26 Cal. Nov. 26, 2013), as support for the proposition that deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs does not constitute a violation of the Bane Act. The portion of the decision Defendants rely 27 upon has been superseded. See Ashley v. Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 12-cv-00045-JST, ECF No.

28

132 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014) (Amended Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment).

61

1 possess and exercise, (3) there was a proximate causal connection between the officer’s negligent

2 conduct and the resulting injury to the plaintiff, and (4) the officer’s negligence resulted in actual

3 loss or damage to the plaintiff. Harris v. Smith, 157 Cal. App. 3d 100, 104 (1984). The question

4 of whether a duty has been breached is normally a question of fact. Hernandez v. KWPH

5 Enterprises, 116 Cal. App. 4th 170, 175 (2004).

6

Here, the parties agree that the negligence and excessive force analyses merge. Because

7 the Court denies summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ excessive force claim against the

8 Sheriff’s Deputies, it will also deny summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ negligence claim against the

9 officers. See, e.g., Knapps v. City of Oakland, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

10

The parties also agree that a viable excessive force claim precludes summary judgment

11 with respect to Plaintiffs’ assault and battery claims against the Sheriff’s Deputies. For the same

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 reason, the Court will deny summary judgment on those claims. See, e.g., id. at 1166–67;

13

The County also argues that it is immune from vicarious liability for the Sheriff’s

14 Deputies’ conduct. That is not the case. Under the California Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t Code,

15 § 810 et seq., a public entity is not liable for injury arising from an act or omission except as

16 provided by statute. Section 815.2(a) provides that “[a] public entity is liable for injury

17 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of

18 his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of

19 action against that employee[.]” Cal. Gov’t Code § 815.2. “This provision clearly allows for

20 vicarious liability of a public entity when one of its police officers uses excessive force in making

21 an arrest.” Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 488 (9th Cir. 2007).

22

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs do not attempt to support their negligence claim

23 against Ms. Hast in opposition to the County’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the

24 Court will enter summary judgment for defendant Hast on that claim.

25

H. Negligence as to Nurse Sancho and the Corizon Defendants

26

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by Nurse Sancho, Plaintiffs agreed

27 to dismiss their negligence claim against her. Accordingly, the Court will grant summary

28 judgment in Nurse Sancho’s favor on that claim. 62

1

In a letter brief concerning whether Plaintiffs’ counsel will be required to testify at trial

2 with respect to the statute of limitations, Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their negligence claims

3 against the Corizon Defendants as well. ECF No. 290 at 3. Accordingly, the Court will grant

4 summary judgment in the Corizon Defendants’ favor on that claim as well.

5

I. California Government Code Section 845.6

6

Plaintiffs assert a claim for violation of California Government Code section 845.6 against

7 Deputy Ahlf, Defendant Hast, and the County.14 The statute provides in relevant part,

United States District Court Northern District of California

8

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury

proximately caused by the failure of the employee to furnish or

9

obtain medical care for a prisoner in his custody; but, except as

otherwise provided by Sections 855.8 and 856, a public employee,

10

and the public entity where the employee is acting within the scope

of his employment, is liable if the employee knows or has reason to

11

know that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he

fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical care. 12

Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6. The County Defendants first argue that they are immune from liability

13

for a violation of section 845.6 by virtue of the immunity provision at Government Code sections

14

855.6, which, inter alia, confers immunity on public employees and entities for injury caused by

15

“the failure to make a physical or mental examination.” But on its face, section 855.6 does not

16

apply to Plaintiffs’ claims arising out of the failure to “summon medical care”; only to the failure

17

to “make a physical or mental examination.” The statute is therefore inapplicable to Plaintiffs’

18 section 845.6 claim.15 See, e.g., Lum v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1257 (E.D.

19

Cal. 2010) (holding section 855.6 inapplicable where plaintiff alleged a “failure to refer decedent

20

for evaluation rather than a failure as a result of diagnosis or treatment”).

21

Turning to the merits of Plaintiffs’ section 845.6 claim, “[i]n order to state a claim under §

22

23 14 The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim against Corizon for violation of California
24 Government Code section 845.6. ECF No. 76 at 12.

25 15 Moreover, the Law Revision Commission notes to section 855.6 state that the statute is meant to

26 confer “immunity for failure to perform adequately public health examinations, such as public

tuberculosis examinations, physical examinations to determine the qualifications of boxers and 27 other athletes, and eye examinations for vehicle operator applicants. It does not apply to

28

examinations for the purpose of treatment such as are made in doctors' offices and public hospitals. In those situations, the ordinary rules of liability would apply.”

63

1 845.6, a prisoner must establish three elements: (1) the public employee knew or had reason to

2 know of the need (2) for immediate medical care, and (3) failed to reasonably summon such care.”

3 Jett, 439 F.3d at 1099. In this manner, section 845.6 imposes “a statutory duty to summon

4 medical care.” Watson v. State of California, 21 Cal. App. 4th 836, 841 (1993). However,

5 liability is “limited” to the failure to summon care for “serious and obvious medical conditions

6 requiring immediate care” of which the defendant has “actual or constructive knowledge.” Id.

7 California courts consider section 845.6 “a broad general immunity,” id., and the statute “does not

8 impose a duty to monitor the quality of care provided,” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1099. Nor does the

9 statute impose liability for any failure in diagnosis or treatment. Watson, 21 Cal. App. 4th at 842.

10

In connection with Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim, the Court previously found that

11 Deputy Ahlf’s failure to summon medical care for Harrison may have violated several County

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 policies and procedures, but that there is no evidence in the record that Deputy Ahlf was

13 subjectively aware of Harrison’s medical condition. While Deputy Ahlf was aware that Harrison

14 was acting bizarrely, he did not know that Harrison was an alcoholic, nor is there any evidence

15 from which a jury could conclude that Deputy Ahlf knew Harrison was suffering from withdrawal.

16 For these reasons, Deputy Ahlf is entitled to summary judgment on his deliberate indifference

17 claim. See Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1193 (“Although the deliberate indifference doctrine contains a

18 heightened foreseeability requirement, this requirement differs from the traditional negligence

19 foreseeability requirement only insofar as deliberate indifference requires the defendant to be

20 subjectively aware that serious harm is likely to result from a failure to provide medical care.”).

21

However, section 845.6 imposes liability for a failure to reasonably summon medical care

22 for a serious medical need of which the defendant has actual or constructive knowledge. See, e.g.,

23 Watson, 21 Cal. App. 4th at 841; Zeilman v. Cnty. of Kern, 168 Cal. App. 3d 1174, 1184 (1985)

24 (“[Q]uestions about jail personnel's actual or constructive knowledge of a prisoner's need for

25 immediate medical care as well as the reasonableness of actions taken to meet this need are factual

26 questions.”) (emphasis added); Johnson v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 143 Cal. App. 3d 298, 317

27 (1983) (“[T]he questions of Sheriffs' actual or constructive knowledge of Decedent's need for

28 immediate care, and of Sheriffs' reasonable action to summon or not to summon such care, are 64

1 questions of fact to be determined at trial.”). The objective knowledge standard under the state

2 law claim therefore reaches conduct that Plaintiffs’ federal claim does not. See Lucas v. Cnty. of

3 Los Angeles, 47 Cal. App. 4th 277, 288 (1996) (holding federal court’s dismissal of deliberate

4 indifference claim did not constitute res judicata for plaintiff’s section 845.6 claim, in part,

5 because of differing knowledge requirements).

6

The Court finds, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, that a

7 reasonable jury could conclude that Deputy Ahlf should have known that Harrison was suffering

8 from a “serious and obvious medical condition[] requiring immediate care,” Watson, 21 Cal. App.

9 4th at 841, both when he first placed Harrison in the isolation cell and when he failed to summon

10 medical care rather than enter Harrison’s cell twelve hours later. The Court also concludes that a

11 reasonable jury could find that Deputy Ahlf’s failure to do so was unreasonable, and, as the Court

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 has already concluded, genuine issues of material fact remain with respect to Harrison’s cause of

13 death, rendering the question of causation appropriate for the jury.

14

With respect to Defendant Hast, however, summary judgment is appropriate. Section

15 845.6 simply does not extend to a failure to diagnose or treat, which is Plaintiffs’ only complaint

16 arising out of Hast’s conduct.

17 VIII. CONCLUSION

18

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motions for

19 summary judgment. Judgment will be entered in Defendants’ favor as to the following claims:

20

1. Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action — 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — as against the Sheriff’s

21 Deputies for deliberate indifference to Harrison’s serious medical needs and for loss of familial

22 association stemming from deliberate indifference to Harrison’s serious medical needs;

23

2. Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action — Monell liability — as against the County in

24 connection with the use of force against Harrison, and as against Corizon and Dr. Orr in

25 connection with the hiring and retention of Nurse Sancho;

26

3. Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action — Cal. Civil Code § 52.1 — as against the

27 Sheriff’s Deputies for violation of Harrison’s civil rights concerning medical care;

28

4. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action — Negligence — as against Defendants Hast,

65

1 Sancho, Corizon Health, and Dr. Orr; and

2

5. Plaintiffs’ Sixth Cause of Action — Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6 — as against

3 Defendant Hast in connection with Harrison’s medical care.

4

In all other respects, the motions for summary judgment are hereby DENIED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: AApprriill 71,12, 0210414 7 8

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge

9

10

11

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 66

 
 1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
M.H., et al., 7
Plaintiffs, 8
v. 9
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., 10
Defendants. 11

Case No. 11-cv-02868 JST
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: ECF Nos. 50, 63

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by

13 Defendants Corizon Health, Sancho, and Orr. ECF No. 46.

14

I. FACTS

15

The Court accepts the following allegations as true for the purpose of resolving this

16 motion. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996).

17

This case arises from the death of Plaintiffs' decedent, Martin Harrison, while he was in the

18 custody of the Alameda County Sheriffs' Department. On August 13, 2010, Mr. Harrison was

19 arrested on a warrant for failure to appear and taken to Santa Rita Jail, in Alameda County. ECF

20 No. 46 ¶ 25. While he was being admitted, Mr. Harrison told the jail nursing staff, including

21 Defendant Zelda Sancho, L.V.N., that he drank alcohol every day, that his last drink had been that

22 day, and that he had a history of alcohol withdrawal. ¶ 27. Nurse Sancho wrote in her assessment

23 note that Mr. Harrison had a history of alcohol withdrawal and further noted the acronym

24 “CIWA,” which stands for Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment, a standard protocol for

25 identifying people at risk for severe alcohol withdrawal. CIWA includes a treatment protocol for

26 the safe detoxification of alcoholics. Id. Jail staff never implemented the protocol for Mr.

27 Harrison. ¶ 28.

28

Defendant Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”), formerly known as Prison Health Services,

1 Inc., provides the healthcare services at Santa Rita Jail. ¶ 15. The County of Alameda contracted

2 with Corizon to provide healthcare services in all its jails. Id. Defendant Dr. Harold Orr, M.D., is

3 Corizon's medical director. He is responsible for overseeing the provision of medical care in

4 Alameda County jail facilities. Id.

5

Neither Nurse Sancho nor anyone else completed a CIWA screening questionnaire for

6 Mr. Harrison, checked his blood alcohol levels, performed lab tests on him, or administered

7 medication to him. ¶ 28. The completion of a CIWA questionnaire was required by Corizon

8 policy, procedure, and training. Id.

9

Left untreated, severe alcohol withdrawal can become a life-threatening medical

10 emergency. Id. On August 15, 2013, two days after his arrest, Mr. Harrison issued a “sick call”

11 slip requesting medical care, but no one came. ¶ 29. By sometime before dawn the next morning,

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Mr. Harrison was suffering from severe alcohol withdrawal — also known as delirium tremens —

13 a life-threatening medical emergency. ¶ 30. Outwardly, he exhibited bizarre behavior and

14 incoherent mumbling, and he suffered from hallucinations, severe anxiety, and disorientation to

15 time and place. Id.

16

Around 3:30 a.m., after observing this behavior, Defendant and Alameda County Sheriff's

17 Deputy Matthew Ahlf moved Mr. Harrison to an isolation cell in Housing Unit 33 of the Santa

18 Rita Jail. Id. Deputy Ahlf did not request mental health or medical care for Mr. Harrison, in

19 contravention of jail policies, procedure, and training.

20

Mr. Harrison stayed in that cell for twelve hours, until 3:30 p.m., before anyone requested

21 medical care. Id. At that time, a sheriff's deputy left a message for the jail's mental health workers

22 stating that Mr. Harrison was exhibiting “bizarre behavior and statements, not oriented to place,

23 believed he was in his apartment and women there . . . mumbling incoherently . . . . Saw a nurse

24 but not receiving any meds.” ¶ 31.

25

Defendant and Alameda County social worker Megan Hast, A.S.W., picked up the

26 message half an hour later. She reviewed Mr. Harrison's chart, saw that he had a history of

27 alcohol withdrawal, and saw the CIWA indication. ¶32. By 4:30 p.m., another half hour later,

28 Ms. Hast called Housing Unit 33 and learned that the deputy would be leaving at 5:00 p.m. By the 2

1 time she arrived, the deputy had gone. She glanced inside Mr. Harrison's cell, saw him standing at

2 the toilet, and left without speaking to him. ¶ 34.

3

An hour later, at 6:00 p.m., Ms. Hast again called Housing Unit 33 and spoke with Deputy

4 Ahlf. He told her that he moved Mr. Harrison to an isolation cell that morning because of his

5 bizarre behavior, which Ms. Hast recognized as consistent with symptoms of severe alcohol

6 withdrawal. ¶ 35.

7

Shortly after 6:00 p.m., Mr. Harrison broke a food tray in his cell, blocked his toilet, and

8 made a mess of his cell. ¶ 37. Deputy Ahlf responded first. He entered the cell alone, taser in one

9 hand and handcuffs in the other. ¶ 38. According to Deputy Ahlf, as he was cuffing Mr. Harrison,

10 Mr. Harrison “tensed,” causing the deputy to push Mr. Harrison to the back of the cell. ¶ 38–39.

11 From the back of the cell, Deputy Ahlf says Mr. Harrison turned and slowly began to walk toward

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 him. The deputy tased him for two cycles, or ten seconds, causing Mr. Harrison to run for the

13 door, slip on the wet floor (he was in his socks), and fall. ¶¶ 37, 39. Deputy Ahlf pounced on 14 Harrison. Deputy Ahlf and at least nine other sheriff's deputies1 then severely beat, punched,

15 kicked, stomped, tased, and brutalized Mr. Harrison. ¶ 39–40. The deputies tased Mr. Harrison

16 for at least twenty-seven more seconds over five separate sessions. ¶ 40. Mr. Harrison never

17 struck or kicked any of his attackers. Id. He was transferred to the jail infirmary, and then to the

18 Valley Care Medical Center, by which time he had suffered anoxic brain damage, severe acidosis,

19 several cardiac arrests, and respiratory failure. ¶¶ 41, 49. He died two days later. ¶ 41. Prior to

20 these events, Mr. Harrison had been a healthy man of fifty, despite his history of alcohol abuse. ¶

21 41.

22

The Alameda County Sheriff's Department Coroner's Bureau performed an autopsy the

23 next day. The Bureau determined that Mr. Harrison died from anoxic encephalopathy due to

24 / / /

25 / / /

26

27 1 The nine sheriff's deputies are Defendants Alejandro Valverde, Joshua Swetnam, Roberto

28

Martinez, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Michael Bareno, Fernando Rojas-Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, and Solomon Unubun.

3

1 cardiac arrest following excessive physical exertion, multiple blunt injuries, and tasering. ¶ 50.

2 The coroner's investigator's report found that the manner of death “could not be determined.”

3 ¶ 51.

4 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

5

Mr. Harrison's minor son, M.H., filed suit on June 10, 2011. Through amendment to the

6 original and first amended complaints, M.H. added two sons and two daughters of Mr. Harrison's

7 as Plaintiffs and Corizon, Dr. Orr, and Nurse Sancho, as Defendants.

8

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on November 19, 2012. ECF No. 46.

9 They allege, as Mr. Harrison's children and co-successors-in-interest, claims against Alameda

10 County, Sheriff Gregory Ahern, the ten sheriff's deputies, Ms. Hast, Corizon, Dr. Orr, and Nurse

11 Sancho for assault and battery, negligence, and violation of Mr. Harrison's civil rights pursuant to

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California's Bane Act, and California Government Code Section 845.6.

13

The Alameda County Defendants, including Ms. Hast, who is employed by the County,

14 answered on December 4, 2012. ECF No. 46. Defendants Orr and Corizon moved to dismiss the

15 Second Amended Complaint on December 18, 2012. ECF No. 50.

16

Plaintiffs responded to the first motion to dismiss by the deadline set by stipulation

17 between the parties, on January 31, 2013. ECF No. 60. By stipulation, the reply brief was due

18 February 14, 2013. On February 12, 2012, this case was reassigned to this Court. The

19 reassignment order vacated all hearing dates and trial dates set before January 1, 2014, but did not

20 affect any briefing deadlines or other case deadlines. ECF No. 62. That order required moving

21 parties to re-notice their motions for hearing.

22

Defendants Orr and Corizon Health did not file a reply on February 14, nor did they re-

23 notice their first motion to dismiss for hearing. Instead, they filed a second motion to dismiss on

24 February 21, 2013, joined by Defendant Sancho, who thereby made her first appearance in the

25 case. ECF No. 63. Plaintiffs served Defendant Sancho on November 28, 2011. ECF No. 49.

26

Plaintiffs responded to the second motion to dismiss on March 7, 2013, ECF No. 67, and

27 Defendants Orr, Sancho, and Corizon replied on March 14, 2013, ECF No. 68.

28 4

1 III. ANALYSIS

2

A. Legal Standards on Motions to Dismiss

3

On a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts the material facts alleged in the

4 complaint, together with reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts, as true.

5 Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). However, “the tenet that a court

6 must accept a complaint's allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals of a

7 cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

8 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

9

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to

10 relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

11 Plausibility does not mean probability, but it requires “more than a sheer possibility that a

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S., at 678. In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]f there are two

13 alternative explanations, one advanced by defendant and the other advanced by plaintiff, both of

14 which are plausible, plaintiff's complaint survives a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

15 Plaintiff's complaint may be dismissed only when defendant's plausible alternative explanation is

16 so convincing that plaintiff's explanation is implausible.” Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216 (original

17 emphasis).

18

B. Defendants' Unauthorized Filing of a Second Motion to Dismiss

19

The Corizon Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended

20 Complaint after failing to file a reply brief in support of their first, and Defendant Sancho joined

21 in the second motion to dismiss even though she was not on the first. Defendants claim Sancho

22 had not been served by the time the first motion was filed even though Plaintiffs filed a certificate

23 of service establishing that she was served on November 28, 2012, three weeks before the first

24 motion to dismiss was filed. See ECF No. 49-3.

25

In their response to the second motion, Plaintiffs “object to Defendants' second motion to

26 dismiss to the extent that it seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on new grounds not previously

27 raised” and request that the Court find any new arguments waived. ECF No. 67 (citing Dorger v.

28 City of Napa, No. 12-cv-440-YGR, 2012 WL 3791447, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2012) (“[T]he 5

1 motion here does not appear to be on a sound footing . . . . [T]he defense or objection was not

2 raised in Defendants' previous motion.”)).

3

Defendants do not offer an explanation for their conduct. Instead, they argue in their reply

4 brief that “this motion is not actually a subsequent motion to dismiss because the Court never

5 considered Dr. Orr and Corizon's prior motion.” ECF No. 68, at 7. They also argue that Ms.

6 Sancho did not waive her challenges to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint because she was

7 not a party to the first motion and, erroneously, because she had not been served by the time that

8 motion was filed. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' objection “is untenable given the

9 Federal Rules' overarching aim of securing 'the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of

10 every action' because finding waiver would only necessitate a functionally identical and

11 duplicative motion for judgment on the pleadings.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1).

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

None of these arguments is meritorious. Defendants had the opportunity to withdraw their

13 motion, if they so chose, but they did not. Civil Local Rule 7-7(e) provides:

14

Withdrawal. Within the time for filing and serving a reply, the moving party may

15

file and serve a notice of withdrawal of the motion. Upon the filing of a timely

withdrawal, the motion will be taken off-calendar. Otherwise, the Court may

16

proceed to decide the motion.

17 Thus, at the time Defendants filed their subsequent motion to dismiss, their first motion was still

18 pending.

19

Defendants also argue that a waiver finding as to Defendant Sancho would be futile

20 because she could simply file a “functionally identical and duplicative motion for judgment on the

21 pleadings.” That argument is incorrect. Defendant Sancho does not claim she was improperly

22 served, and so unless the Court considers Defendants' second motion to dismiss, Defendant

23 Sancho is in default and not entitled to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Even if this

24 were not the case, the Court is not persuaded that it should violate its own rules for the sake of

25 expediency.

26

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court will consider and decide Defendants' second

27 motion to dismiss because there will be no prejudice to Plaintiffs from the Court doing so. First,

28 Plaintiffs have fully responded to Defendants' second motion. Second, the motions are not very

6

1 different from each other (although Defendants improperly made new arguments in their reply

2 brief, as discussed below). Defendants are cautioned that future violations of the Court's rules

3 may not be treated as flexibly.

4

C. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice

5

Defendants accompanied their reply brief with a request for judicial notice of the

6 complaint in Baker v. County of Sonoma, No. 08-cv-03433-EDL (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2008). ECF

7 No. 69. Defendants' unopposed request is GRANTED.

8

D. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Bane Act Claim, California Civil Code § 52.1

9

California's Bane Act, codified at Civil Code sections 52.1(a) and (b), provides a private

10 right of action for damages against any person, whether acting under color of law or not, who

11 interferes or attempts to interfere “by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the

13 United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws” of California.

14

The Corizon Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Bane Act claim against them on the

15 grounds that the Act “provides remedies for certain misconduct only if the putative misconduct

16 was 'accompanied by threats, intimidation, or coercion,'” ECF No. 63 at 4 (quoting Venegas v.

17 County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal. 4th 820, 843 (2004)), and Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege this

18 element in their complaint.

19

i. Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs

20

Plaintiffs' Bane Act claim alleges that the Corizon Defendants' acts, omissions, customs,

21 and policies violated Mr. Harrison's right to adequate medical care. Plaintiffs further allege that

22 these acts and omissions constituted deliberate indifference to Mr. Harrison's medical needs as

23 secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment and the analogous prohibition against cruel and

24 unusual punishment found in Article 1, Section 17 of the California Constitution. See Estelle v.

25 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 101 (1976); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).

26

In order to state a deliberate indifference claim, Plaintiffs must first show a “serious

27 medical need” such that “failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant

28 injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). 7

1 Next, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants' response to the serious medical need was deliberately

2 indifferent. Id. The second prong may be established by allegations of “(a) a purposeful act or

3 failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the

4 indifference.” Id. Deliberate indifference may be shown where prison officials or practitioners

5 “deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment.” Hutchinson v. United States, 838

6 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). In contrast, “mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical

7 condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights.” Id.

8

Plaintiffs here allege: (1) Corizon is responsible for the medical care at the Santa Rita jail;

9 (2) Nurse Sancho completed the intake for Mr. Harrison and recognized Mr. Harrison required a

10 Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment based on his risk for severe alcohol withdrawal

11 symptoms; (3) Nurse Sancho and other Corizon employees failed to follow through with this

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 assessment, which resulted in the events leading up to his altercation with prison officers. In

13 particular, Corizon failed to check Mr. Harrison's blood alcohol levels, perform laboratory tests,

14 administer medication, or do anything else to prevent or treat Mr. Harrison's alcohol withdrawal

15 for three days; (4) Health failed to respond to Mr. Harrison's pleas for medical attention, including

16 his issuance of a “sick call” slip requesting medical care the day before the incident that gave rise

17 to this action; (5) Mr. Harrison ultimately succumbed to severe alcohol withdrawal and delirium

18 tremens, a life-threatening condition; (6) prison officials moved Mr. Harrison to an isolation cell

19 after they realized something was wrong, only to leave Mr. Harrison in the cell for twelve hours

20 before a prison social worker, Defendant Megan Hast, was alerted to his condition; and (7) in

21 addition to the deliberate indifference of Corizon's employees, Corizon's failure adequately to train

22 its employees and its customs, policies, and practices caused Mr. Harrison's suffering.

23

Plaintiffs' allegations here, if true, establish that Corizon and Nurse Sancho knew that Mr.

24 Harrison was at risk of a serious medical condition, that they violated prison and County

25 procedure in failing to attend to his medical needs, and that they failed to satisfy the medical

26 standard of care, which resulted in substantial harm. Viewed in the light most favorable to

27 Plaintiffs, the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently state a claim that Nurse

28 Sancho was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Harrison's medical needs. See Hunt v. Dental Dept., 8

1 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989) (prisoner's deliberate indifference allegations were sufficient

2 where he alleged “prison officials were aware of his bleeding gums, breaking teeth, and his

3 inability to eat properly, yet failed to take any action to relieve his pain or to prescribe a soft food

4 diet until new dentures could be fitted.”); Baker v. County of Sonoma, 08-cv-03433-EDL, 2009

5 WL 330937, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (allegations of prison officials denying prisoner his

6 pain medication were sufficient to state deliberate indifference claim).

7

Because Plaintiffs adequately state a Bane Act claim with respect to Defendant Sancho, her

8 liability also gives rise to respondeat superior liability with respect to Defendant Corizon Health

9 under traditional California common law principles. See Perreault v. Cty. of Westminister, 12-cv-

10 2767-CAS, 2013 WL 864783, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2013) (recognizing availability of

11 respondeat superior liability for violations of Bane Act).

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Finally, Plaintiffs adequately allege an independent claim against Dr. Orr and Corizon for

13 failure to train their employees and for the implementation of customs, policies, or practices that

14 caused Mr. Harrison's suffering, as discussed in more detail below. See infra Part III.G.

15

ii. Threats, Intimidation, or Coercion

16

Bane Act liability extends only to rights violations accompanied by “threats, intimidation,

17 or coercion.” See Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; Venegas, 32 Cal. 4th at 843, 850–51 (Baxter, J.

18 concurring) (characterizing burden of showing “threats, intimidation, or coercion” as minimal: “it

19 should not prove difficult to frame many, if not most, asserted violations of any state or federal

20 statutory or constitutional right, including mere technical statutory violations, as incorporating a

21 threatening, coercive, or intimidating verbal or written component”).

22

Defendants here argue that, to adequately allege a Bane Act violation, Plaintiffs must

23 allege "threats, intimidation or coercion" separate and independent from the wrongful conduct

24 constituting the rights violation, citing Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles, 203 Cal. App. 4th 947,

25 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012), reh'g den'd (Mar. 13, 2012), rev. den'd (May 9, 2012). In Shoyoye, a

26 computer error resulted in the unlawful detention of a prisoner that had been ordered released.

27 The Shoyoye court held that "the statute requires a showing of coercion independent from the

28 coercion inherent in the wrongful detention itself." That court made clear that the basis of its 9

1 holding was that plaintiff's evidence

2

showed only that County employees were negligent in assigning to

Shoyoye a parole hold in the computer system, and in failing to

3

detect the error during the subsequent quality control procedure . . . .

Any intimidation or coercion that occurred was simply that which is

4

reasonable and incident to maintaining a jail.

5

Id. Distinguishing Venegas, the Shoyoye court observed that, in the former case, probable

6 cause “eroded at some point, such that the officers' conduct became intentionally coercive and

7 wrongful, i.e., a knowing and blameworthy interference with the plaintiffs' constitutional rights,”

8 whereas in the latter, “[t]he coercion was not carried out in order to effect a knowing interference

9 with Shoyoye's constitutional rights.” Id. Defendants read Shoyoye to create a requirement in all

10 Bane Act cases that constitutional interference must be accompanied by “threats, intimidation, or

11 coercion” separate and apart from the rights violation. Although "federal district courts

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 interpreting Shoyoye continue to disagree about its significance," Cardoso v. Cnty. of San Mateo,

13 2013 WL 900816 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013), this Court agrees with other courts holding that, at the

14 pleading stage, the relevant distinction for purposes of the Bane Act is between intentional and

15 unintentional conduct, and that Shoyoye applies only when the conduct is unintentional. See, e.g.,

16 Bass v. City of Fremont, 12-cv-4943-TEH, 2013 WL 891090 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013).

17

In Bass, the court sustained a Bane Act claim where the plaintiff's allegedly

18 unconstitutional “detention and arrest resulted from the officers' action, rather than their inaction.”

19 The court concluded that “Shoyoye is best viewed as a carve-out from the general rule stated in

20 Venegas. In Shoyoye, the plaintiff's overdetention resulted from the negligent inaction of

21 administrators, whereas in Venegas, the defendant officer engaged in a series of actions involving

22 'threats, intimidation, or coercion' that resulted in the plaintiff's unreasonable seizure and wrongful

23 arrest.” Id. at *6–7. See also Holland v. City of San Francisco, 10-cv-2603-TEH, 2013 WL

24 968295 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013) (rejecting Defendants' Shoyoye argument because plaintiff

25 alleged intentional, not unintentional, interference with constitutional rights); Skeels v. Pilegaard,

26 12-cv-2175-TEH, 2013 WL 970974, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013) (distinguishing Shoyoye

27 because plaintiff's alleged harms “were not brought about by human error, but rather by intentional

28 conduct, conduct which could be reasonably perceived as threatening, intimidating, or coercive”). 10

1 See also Cardoso, 2013 WL 900816, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss

2 based on Shoyoye because plaintiff's Bane Act claim “may turn on details about the alleged

3 application of excessive force — details which are unavailable at this early stage in the

4 litigation”).

5

iii. Application to Plaintiffs' Deliberate Indifference Claim

6

Because the relevant distinction under the Bane Act is between intentional and

7 unintentional conduct, the next question is whether an allegation of "deliberate indifference" is

8 adequate to place the case outside the holding of Shoyoye. For the reasons that follow, the Court

9 concludes that deliberate indifference is closer to intentional conduct, and should be judged

10 accordingly.

11

From its inception, "deliberate indifference" has been a substantially higher standard than

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 negligence, and has been associated with affirmatively culpable conduct. Estelle v. Gamble, 429

13 U.S. at 104 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169–173 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart,

14 Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)). “Inadvertent failure” to provide medical care, “a complaint that a

15 physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition,” and medical

16 malpractice claims do not qualify as deliberate indifference claims. Id. at 105 (quotations

17 omitted). Prison officials must have “a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer v. Brennan,

18 511 U.S. 825 (1994). Liability will not lie unless the official knows of and disregards a substantial

19 risk to inmate health or safety. “[T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the

20 inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the

21 inference.” Id. at 837. The Ninth Circuit has consistently applied the Farmer test by requiring

22 that prisoners alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs allege “(a) a purposeful act or

23 failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the

24 indifference.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. See also, Hunt, 865 F.2d at 200.

25

Because deliberate indifference claims necessarily require more than “mere negligence,” a

26 prisoner who successfully proves that prison officials acted or failed to act with deliberate

27 indifference to his medical needs in violation of his constitutional rights presents a case far more

28 like Venegas than Shoyoye and adequately states a claim for relief under the Bane Act. 11

1 Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs here have failed adequately to

2 allege a violation of the Bane Act and DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Bane

3 Act claim against Corizon Health, Dr. Orr, and Nurse Sancho.

4

E. California Government Code § 845.6

5

Corizon Health moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Government Code Section 845.6 claim because

6 Corizon is not a “public entity” or “public employee” for purposes of that statute. This portion of

7 Defendants' motion is unopposed and, accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section

8 845.6 claim is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' claims against Corizon Health for violations of California

9 Government Code Section 845.6 are hereby DISMISSED.

10

F. Negligence

11

Defendants Orr, Sancho, and Corizon Health argue that the statute of limitations has expired

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 on Plaintiffs' negligence claim against them because California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5

13 limits negligence claims against healthcare providers to one year. Defendants raised this argument in

14 opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their Second Amended Complaint, and Judge Wilken

15 rejected it. ECF No. 45, at 10, n.4 (finding Plaintiffs do not allege claims subject to California Code of

16 Civil Procedure section 340.5: “The statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims is therefore

17 irrelevant”) (Wilken, J.). Because Defendants now simply repeat the same arguments they previously

18 made, the Court will again reach the same conclusion. The statute of limitations has not expired on

19 Plaintiffs' negligence claim.

20

In their second motion to dismiss, Defendants make the additional argument that Plaintiffs'

21 addition of the Corizon Health Defendants more than two years after Mr. Harrison's death exceeded

22 the statute of limitations for general negligence claims. This argument is also unavailing. Plaintiffs

23 added the Corizon Health Defendants to the Second Amended Complaint after realizing through

24 discovery that the prison officials at the Santa Rita jail who failed to provide Mr. Harrison with

25 adequate medical care were employed by Corizon Health and not Alameda County. The Second

26 Amended Complaint is based on the same operative facts as the first amended and original complaints,

27 and the California relation back doctrine therefore permits Plaintiffs to add the Corizon Health

28 12

1 Defendants now. See Merritt v. County of Los Angeles, 875 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1989).2

2

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' negligence claim as time-barred is DENIED.

3

G. Supervisory Liability

4

Defendants Orr and Corizon Health move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Monell section 1983 claim

5 against them because Plaintiffs' allegations of supervisory liability for the deliberate indifference

6 of Corizon Health's employees are too conclusory to state a claim upon which relief can be

7 granted. See Monell v. New York Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (holding

8 respondeat superior liability unavailable in claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

9

Supervisory liability for violation of constitutional rights exists only if either (1) the

10 supervisor was personally involved in the deprivation or (2) there is a “sufficient causal

11 connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Jeffers v.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). Here, only the second prong is

13 relevant because Plaintiffs do not allege that Dr. Orr was personally involved in the constitutional

14 violation.

15

The Ninth Circuit has recognized several bases for supervisory liability in civil rights

16 cases. “A supervisor can be liable in his individual capacity for his own culpable action or

17 inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates; for his acquiescence in the

18 constitutional deprivation; or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the

19 rights of others.” Starr, 652 F.3d at 1208 (quoting Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087,

20 1093 (9th Cir.1998)). In Starr, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff's allegations that “the

21 actions or inactions of the person 'answerable for the prisoner's safe-keeping' caused his injury are

22 therefore sufficient to state a claim of supervisory liability for deliberate indifference.” Id.

23

In Frary v. County of Marin, 2012 WL 6218196, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2012), Anthony

24 Carmignani was arrested, placed in a squad car, and taken to the Marin County Jail in handcuffs.

25 While in the car, Carmignani removed narcotics from his pockets, disposed of some, and

26 swallowed others. Carmignani died twenty-fours later from a drug overdose while still in custody.

27

28

2 Judge Wilken reached a similar conclusion with respect to Plaintiffs' addition of Megan Hast as a defendant to an earlier complaint. ECF No. 45, at 9–10.

13

1 The officers were told prior to arresting Carmignani, and again seven hours later by his mother,

2 that he was carrying narcotics. Officers observed that he appeared sick on more than one occasion

3 while he was in custody.

4

In Frary, as here, the plaintiffs claimed that the police chief “failed to properly train,

5 assign, supervise, and guide his staff to take the necessary measures to ensure the health and safety

6 of arrested persons." Id.at *8. The Frary court found that the plaintiff had adequately alleged a

7 claim for supervisory liability under section 1983.

8

Here, Plaintiffs allege the following policies, customs, practices, or lack thereof, constitute

9 deliberate indifference to prisoners' medical needs: (1) failure to institute adequate procedures for

10 the prevention and treatment of severe alcohol withdrawal; (2) failure to coordinate the healthcare

11 assessment of inmates both generally and at the intake screening process; (3) failure to institute,

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 require, and enforce proper and adequate training, supervision, policies, and procedures

13 concerning the handling of addicted prisoners; (4) denial of access to appropriate, competent, and

14 necessary care for serious medical and psychiatric needs; and (5) failure properly to hire, train,

15 instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate, investigate, and discipline healthcare personnel.

16

With respect to Dr. Orr, Plaintiffs allege: (1) that he was Corizon Health's medical director;

17 (2) that he was responsible for making and enforcing policies, procedures, and training related to

18 the medical care of inmates, including medical care related to alcohol withdrawal, and (3) that he

19 approved, tolerated, and/or ratified the wrongful acts and omissions of healthcare personnel with

20 respect to Mr. Harrison's lack of adequate medical care

21

In light of Starr and Frary, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated valid Monell claims

22 against Corizon Health and Dr. Orr, and those Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Monell

23 claims against them is therefore DENIED.

24 / / /

25 / / /

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 / / / 14

1 IV. CONCLUSION

2

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is hereby DENIED,

3 except for Plaintiffs' California Government Code Section 845.6 claim, which is hereby

4 DISMISSED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: April 17, 2013

7

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

8

United States District Judge

9

10

11

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 15

 
 Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 437 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 10

MICHAEL J. HADDAD (State Bar No. 189114) 1 JULIA SHERWIN (State Bar No. 189268)
GENEVIEVE K. GUERTIN (State Bar No. 262479) 2 T. KENNEDY HELM (State Bar No. 282319)
HADDAD & SHERWIN LLP 3 505 Seventeenth Street
Oakland, CA 94612 4 Telephone: (510) 452-5500
Facsimile: (510) 452-5510

5 Richard H. Friedman (State Bar No. 221622)

6

rfriedman@friedmanrubin.com FRIEDMAN | RUBIN

1126 Highland Avenue 7 Bremerton, WA 98337

Telephone: (360) 782-4300

8 Facsimile: (360) 782-4358

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12

13

14 M.H., a minor, through his Guardian Ad Litem, Michelle )

15

Henshaw, JOSEPH HARRISON, KRYSTLE HARRISON, MARTIN HARRISON, JR., and

TIFFANY

) ) )

Case No. C11-2868 JST (LB)

HARRISON, all Individually and as Co-Successors in
16

) STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED)

Interest of Decedent MARTIN HARRISON,

) ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

17
Plaintiffs,

18

vs.

) ) Trial Date: February 2, 2015 ) )

) Hon.: Jon S. Tigar

19 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation; )

20

SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN, in his official

)

capacity;

DEPUTIES

MATTHEW

AHLF,

ALEJANDRO

) )

21 VALVERDE, JOSHUA SWETNAM, ROBERTO

)

MARTINEZ, ZACHARY LITVINCHUK, RYAN

)

22 MADIGAN, MICHAEL BARENO, FERNANDO

)

ROJAS-CASTANEDA, SHAWN SOBRERO, 23 SOLOMON UNUBUN; MEGAN HAST, A.S.W.;

) ) )

24 CORIZON HEALTH, INC., a Delaware corporation; ) HAROLD ORR, M.D.; ZELDA SANCHO, L.V.N.; and )

25 DOES 5-20, individually, jointly and severally,

) )

26 Defendants.

)

27

28 C-11-2868 JST (LB): STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

1

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 437 Filed 02/26/15 Page 2 of 10

The parties, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree to a full and
1
2 final settlement of all of Plaintiffs’ claims against all Defendants for damages, injunctive relief, 3 and attorneys’ fees and costs as follows:

4 1) Within 45 days of approval of the settlement by the Alameda County Board of
5 Supervisors, Alameda County and Corizon shall pay the sum $8,300,000, to Haddad & Sherwin
6
LLP Client Trust Account for the benefit of Tiffany Harrison, Martin Harrison, Jr., Krystle
7
Harrison, and Joseph Harrison, in full and final settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims for damages, and
8
all attorneys’ fees and costs to date. Prior to the 45-day deadline for payment of the settlement
9
10 money, the parties may execute a written settlement agreement(s), provided any such agreement

11 does not alter or affect any party’s right or obligation under this Stipulation and Order of

12 Settlement. Any settlement payment received by Haddad & Sherwin LLP later than 45 days after
13 approval of the settlement by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors shall include interest at
14
the California judgment interest rate, California Code of Civil Procedure § 685.010.
15
2) The parties also stipulate and agree to the nonmonetary relief set forth below.
16
3) Licensed California Registered Nurses or a higher level care provider (physician,
17
18 physician’s assistant, or nurse practitioner) will conduct all Receiving Screenings and patient

19 assessments on all inmates in Alameda County Jails, and in all facilities throughout the State of

20 California where Corizon Health, Inc., or any of its related corporations (for example, Corizon,
21
Inc. or Corizon, LLC), collectively called herein “Corizon,” provide correctional health care
22
services. Corizon will comply with all California statutes and regulations governing the practice
23
of nursing and vocational nursing. Corizon shall provide the Registered Nurses described in this
24
25 paragraph by December 31, 2015.
26 4) The County will provide health training for Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (“ACSO”)

27 sworn staff who work with inmates in accordance and compliance with National Commission on

28 C-11-2868 JST (LB): STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

2

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 437 Filed 02/26/15 Page 3 of 10

Correctional Health Care (“NCCHC”) Essential Standard J-C-04, attached hereto and incorporated
1
2 herein, and also provides training, to ACSO sworn staff who work with inmates, on alcohol and 3 other drug problems, including intoxication and withdrawal, mental health and medical

4 emergencies, and the appropriate communications to medical and mental health staff, regardless of
5 whether a particular facility is NCCHC accredited. Alameda County represents that it is already
6
providing this training. This training includes an outline and course content and length kept on
7
file, and a certificate or other evidence of attendance for each employee. This training shall occur
8
not less than every two years in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. New hires will
9
10 be timely trained.

11 5) The Honorable Jon S. Tigar will maintain jurisdiction over this settlement and the

12 injunctive relief in this matter, with court supervised monitoring, to resolve any disputes, to
13 facilitate the meet and confer process, and to issue all appropriate orders concerning the settlement
14
agreement and the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement thereof, for four years. Any
15
party may request a status conference with the Court concerning these matters at any time, or
16
move for any appropriate relief under the terms of this Order. If there is a material breach of the
17
18 terms of the agreement within that four year time period, any party may move the court to extend

19 the Court’s supervision and monitoring against the breaching party for up to an additional three

20 years. Before moving for relief from the District Court, the parties will meet and confer to attempt
21
to resolve any differences. Should the parties’ meet and confer efforts be unsuccessful, any party
22
may request a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Beeler.
23
6) Alameda County will provide the law offices of Haddad & Sherwin LLP documentation
24
25 every six months beginning on June 1, 2015, and ending on February 1, 2019, concerning their
26 compliance with this agreement, and will provide all further information reasonably requested by

27 Haddad & Sherwin LLP within thirty days of receipt of the request. That documentation shall

28 C-11-2868 JST (LB): STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

3

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 437 Filed 02/26/15 Page 4 of 10

consist of the following: Course outlines, content, training materials including policies referenced,
1
2 and updates as generated, and sworn declaration(s) from the training and litigation coordinators 3 confirming the dates of training and number of officers trained during the relevant time period.

4 Any confidential material shall be produced pursuant to the protective order in this case, if
5 appropriate. In no event shall a reporting delay of ten (10) business days or less be deemed a
6
material breach of this agreement. Corizon will provide the law offices of Haddad & Sherwin
7
LLP documentation every six months beginning on June 1, 2015, and ending on February 1, 2019,
8
concerning their compliance with this agreement, and will provide all further information
9
10 reasonably requested by Haddad & Sherwin LLP within thirty days of receipt of the request.

11 Corizon’s June 1, 2015 report will be a letter from Nancy Hudgins detailing Corizon’s progress to

12 date. All subsequent reports will be a declaration under oath by the Responsible Health Authority
13 at each Corizon facility in California. Haddad & Sherwin LLP will participate in the monitoring
14
and any necessary enforcement of the injunctive relief on a pro bono (free of charge) basis up to
15
25 hours of attorney time for Alameda County, and 25 hours of attorney time for Corizon. If the
16
attorney time required to monitor and, if necessary, to enforce the agreement exceeds 25 hours as
17
18 to either Alameda County or Corizon, that defendant party shall pay Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

19 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs reasonably incurred. If and when Haddad & Sherwin LPP

20 have less than 5 hours of pro bono time remaining to any Defendant it will provide that Defendant
21
with written notice of the same, with an accounting of time spent, and it will also provide that
22
Defendant with an anticipated budget to cover the period of time remaining on this injunctive
23
relief. Where appropriate, Haddad & Sherwin LLP shall bill attorneys’ fees separately to Corizon
24
25 and Alameda County, with inseparable time apportioned evenly between the Defendants.

26

27

28 C-11-2868 JST (LB): STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

4

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 437 Filed 02/26/15 Page 5 of 10

7) Alameda County and Corizon Health, Inc., will enter into an amendment to their current
1
2 contract for medical services within the Alameda County jails, that includes all nonmonetary relief 3 set forth herein.

4 8) It is expressly understood and agreed among the parties that this agreement is made in
5 compromise of disputed and controverted claims, and that nothing contained herein shall
6
constitute or be deemed to be an admission by any party of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing of
7
any kind, or of the validity or invalidity of other parties’ allegations, claims, defenses, or
8
contentions.
9
10 9) This Stipulation and Proposed Order of Settlement was negotiated and agreed under the

11 auspices of settlement conferences with the Honorable Laurel Beeler, Magistrate Judge, after four

12 days of trial before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, District Judge.

13

14 Dated: February 26, 2015

HADDAD & SHERWIN LLP

15 16 17
18 Dated: February 26, 2015

/s/ Julia Sherwin________ Julia Sherwin Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LAW OFFICES OF NANCY E. HUDGINS

19

_____/s/ Nancy E. Hudgins*______

20

Nancy E. Hudgins

21

Attorneys for Defendants

CORIZON HEALTH, INC. and

22

HAROLD ORR, M.D.

23

24

25

26

27

28 C-11-2868 JST (LB): STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

5

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 437 Filed 02/26/15 Page 6 of 10

Dated February 26, 2015
1

ANDRADA AND ASSOCIATES

2
_____/s/ Randall Andrada*_________

3

J. RANDALL ANDRADA

Attorneys for Defendants

4

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, GREGORY G.

AHERN, MATTHEW ALHF, ALEJANDRO

5

VALVERDE, JOSHUA SWETNAM,

6

ROBERTO MARTINEZ, ZACHARY

LITVINCHUK, RYAN MADIGAN,

7

MICHAEL BARENO, FERNANDO ROJAS-

CASTANEDA, SHAWN SOBRERO,

8

SOLOMON UNUBUN, and MEGAN HAST

9

10

11
* Defense counsel provided their consent that this document be electronically filed.
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 C-11-2868 JST (LB): STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

6

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 437 Filed 02/26/15 Page 7 of 10

(PROPOSED) ORDER
1

2

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS SO

3 ORDERED.

4

5

6
Dated: _______________
7
8

HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 C-11-2868 JST (LB): STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

7

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 437 Filed 02/26/15 Page 8 of 10

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 437 Filed 02/26/15 Page 9 of 10

Case 3:11-cv-02868-JST Document 437 Filed 02/26/15 Page 10 of 10