Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03129/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03129-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NYLA MOUJAES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03129-DMR 

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1 (Docket No. 54):

Defendants move to exclude plaintiff’s “expert” testimony regarding her injuries. The 

motion is granted in part. Plaintiff may testify about her physical and mental condition, as well as 

her perceptions and experiences before, during, and after the incident. However, Plaintiff may not 

testify about her diagnoses or prognoses. The court takes under submission the issue of whether

Plaintiff may present evidence regarding the cost of her medical care. By December 6, 2016, the 

parties shall submit additional two-page briefs on the effect of insurance, and shall also provide

two copies of the missing San Francisco General Hospital bill for the exhibit binders. 

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 2 (Docket No. 55):

Defendants move to exclude the testimony of Sergeant Flint Paul, as well as Exhibit 22, 

which is the use of force log. The motion is denied. Sergeant Paul’s testimony and the use of

force log are relevant, and the probative value of such evidence outweighs any prejudice.

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 3 (Docket No. 56):

Defendants move to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s police practices expert Roger 

Clark, or at least to exclude his testimony on ultimate legal conclusions. The motion to exclude 

his testimony is denied. Defendants’ objections to Clark’s testimony go to the weight of his 

Case 4:15-cv-03129-DMR Document 87 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

opinions, and not their admissibility. The motion to exclude his testimony on ultimate legal 

conclusions is granted. Both parties’ police practices experts (Clark and Cameron) may not use 

any language suggestive of ultimate legal conclusions. For example, the experts may not testify as 

to whether Defendants’ use of force was “reasonable” or “excessive.” The experts may instead 

use language such as whether the use of force complied with standard police practices, or whether 

Defendants acted in a manner consistent with their training. 

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 4 (Docket No. 57):

Defendants move to exclude Plaintiff’s testimony that the paramedics were laughing at her. 

The motion is denied. Plaintiff may testify about her perceptions from her own personal 

knowledge. The testimony is relevant to witness credibility as well as damages. 

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 5 (Docket No. 58):

Defendants move to exclude evidence that the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office did 

not charge Plaintiff with the violations listed on her citation, including resisting arrest and DUI. 

The motion is denied. The evidence is relevant, and its probative value outweighs any prejudice to 

Defendants. However, Plaintiff shall not argue or suggest that the District Attorney’s decision not 

to pursue charges indicates that the citations were improper. 

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 6 (Docket No. 59):

Defendants move to exclude evidence regarding other claims, complaints, and allegations 

relating to Defendants. The motion is denied without prejudice, as Defendants did not specifically 

identify any such evidence. Plaintiff confirmed that she will not seek to introduce evidence about 

the resignation of Chief Greg Suhr or media reports that are critical of the San Francisco Police 

Department. 

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 7 (Docket No. 60):

Defendants move to exclude evidence and argument that Plaintiff was subjected to racial 

profiling. At the pretrial conference, Defendants clarified that this motion seeks to exclude 

Plaintiff’s testimony about her own perceptions as to why she was pulled over, and to exclude 

Exhibit 23 (“Traffic Stop Data Collection Program Information”). Defendants’ motion as to 

Plaintiff’s testimony is denied. Plaintiff may testify about her own perceptions, experiences and 

Case 4:15-cv-03129-DMR Document 87 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

observations. Plaintiff confirmed that her police practices expert will not offer any opinions

regarding race. Exhibit 23 is excluded as irrelevant. 

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 8 (Docket No. 61):

Defendants move to exclude any reference to the City and County of San Francisco as 

paymaster. The motion is granted. Plaintiff may not make any such reference unless Defendants 

open the door by suggesting that an adverse judgment may impact their personal finances. 

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 9 (Docket No. 62):

Defendants move to exclude evidence or argument that Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested. 

The motion is granted in part. Plaintiff may elicit testimony about the traffic stop and arrest. 

Plaintiff’s expert shall not testify regarding the lawfulness of the stop or the arrest. The court

tentatively plans to instruct the jury as follows: “The legality of the traffic stop and the arrest for 

traffic violations are not before the jury. However, you may consider all of the circumstances 

regarding the traffic stop and Plaintiff’s arrest to determine whether the Defendants used excessive 

force against Plaintiff.” The parties shall be prepared to address this instruction at the December 

14, 2016 charging conference. 

II. EXHIBITS 

 Exhibit 1: Defendants’ objections are untimely and are therefore waived. 

 Exhibit 2: The parties shall meet and confer regarding the proposed transcript and 

shall file any objections by December 6, 2016. 

 Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10: By December 6, 2016, Plaintiff shall file supplemental 

briefing on why the medical records do not contain hearsay.

 Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15, 16: The court reserves ruling on these exhibits. 

 Exhibits 17, 18, 19: The parties cannot submit expert reports for use by the jury, 

but may use the reports to refresh the experts’ recollection. 

 Exhibit 20: Defendants shall remove the cars depicted on page 2 of the exhibit. 

 Exhibit 21: Defendants’ objections are untimely and are therefore waived.

 Exhibit 22: Defendants’ objections are overruled (see motion in limine no. 2).

 Exhibit 23: Defendants’ objection is sustained (see motion in limine no. 7).

Case 4:15-cv-03129-DMR Document 87 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. WITNESSES 

Plaintiff must decide whether she will call Defendants’ medical expert, Dr. David Atkin.

If Plaintiff calls Dr. Atkin, Plaintiff must subpoena him and pay his expenses. Plaintiff may 

question Dr. Atkin within the scope of his report. Defendants’ Rule 26 objection is untimely and 

is therefore waived. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-03129-DMR Document 87 Filed 12/02/16 Page 4 of 4