Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00457-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT E. HUNTER, D.V.M.; and

HOWARD ELEY,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SHERIFF

SCOTT JONES, in his official

capacity, 

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:06-cv-00457-GEB-EFB

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

On September 4, 2012, Defendants re-filed their Motions in

Limine (“MIL”) Nos. 1 through 14, which were initially filed in advance

of the November 2008 trial. (ECF No. 145.) Those motions were previously

ruled upon in an order filed October 24, 2008 (ECF No. 98), and

Defendants have not shown why the October 24, 2008 order should be

modified.1

Defendants have also filed multiple motions in limine since

the action was originally scheduled for trial. These motions are

addressed in turn below. 

The Court notes that Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4, which 1

concerns the expert testimony of Plaintiffs’ former use of force expert 

Tim Twomey is no longer at issue since Mr. Twomey is now deceased, and

Plaintiff was given leave to disclose a new use of force expert. 

1

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 175 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 7
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

Motion in Limine No. 152

During the November 2008 trial, Defendants moved to exclude

any mention of “a Section 1983 action [that was] recently filed against

the County and individual deputies . . . [which] involves conduct

alleged to have occurred during a vehicle stop, and does not involve the

Main Jail.” (Defs.’ Supplemental MIL 1:18-23, ECF No. 111.) Defendants

argue, “[w]hether the allegations are true, or not, they are

sensationalistic, irrelevant[,] and hearsay.” (Id. at 1:24-25.)

This motion is unopposed and is granted. 

Motion in Limine No. 16

Defendants seek to preclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ prior

use of force expert, Tim Twomey, “[w]hether [in] the form [of] prior

depositions, declarations[,] or trial testimony . . . .” (Defs.’

Supplemental MIL 2:2-4, 2:26-3:2, ECF No. 145-1.) Defendants argue:

“[w]hile with his death, Twomey is unavailable under FRE 804(b)(1),

where the unavailable witness is an expert, beyond unavailability, the

offering party must also show that there is no other expert available

who could otherwise offer testimony.” (Id. at 2:4-6.)

This motion appears moot since Plaintiffs were given leave to

disclose, and have disclosed, a new use of force expert. Therefore, this

motion is denied. 

Motion in Limine No. 17

Defendants seek to exclude any mention of “[t]he fact [that]

the matter was tried previously, the appeal[, or the] result thereof”

under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.” (Id. at 3:12-13.) 

This motion is unopposed and is granted. 

For ease of reference, the Court continues the sequential 2

numbering of Defendants’ motions in limine, commencing at number 15. 

2

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 175 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 7
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

Motions in Limine No. 18-193

Defendants seek to exclude the expert testimony of Plaintiffs’

use of force expert David Orsay arguing, inter alia, that he “is not an

expert[, h]is supposedly specialized knowledge is not reliable,” and

his expected testimony “fails to satisfy any of the standards for expert

testimony set forth in Daubert . . . , and is entirely lacking in

intellectual rigor.” (Defs.’ MIL to Exclude Opinions of Pls.’ Use-ofForce Expert 2:5-8, ECF No. 167.) Defendants further argue that “Mr.

Orsay’s opinions improperly invite the jury to substitute the expert’s

opinion for their own regarding a legal conclusion . . . .” (Id. at

6:12-13.) 

These motions are not presented in a sufficient manner for an

in limine ruling and are therefore denied. 

Motion in Limine No. 20

Defendants seek to exclude the expert declaration of

Plaintiff’s former use of force expert, Tim Twomey, which is attached in

its entirety to Mr. Orsay’s expert declaration. (Id. at 6:22, 7:14-15.)

Defendants also seek to exclude “every opinion expressed by Mr. Orsay,

[which is] based on Mr. Twomney’s opinion . . . .” (Id. at 7:14-16.)

Defendants argue: 

Because Mr. Twomey is not available for crossexamination, his expert report is inadmissible[,

and his declaration] cannot serve as the basis for

Mr. Orsay’s own opinions . . . because the Federal

Rules of Evidence do not permit an expert to rely

upon excerpts from opinions developed by another

expert for the purposes of litigation.

(Id. at 6:23-27 (internal citation omitted).)

Defendants incorrectly commence the numbering of their motions 3

in limine filed on February 5, 2013, at number 17. Instead, this order

continues the sequential numbering of Defendants’ in limine motions at

number 18. 

3

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 175 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 7
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

Federal Rule of Evidence 703 provides in relevant part:

An expert may base an opinion on facts or data

in the case that the expert has been made aware

of . . . . If experts in the particular field would

reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in

forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be

admissible for the opinion to be admitted.

Defendants have not shown that an expert witness may never

rely upon information provided by another expert in forming his or her

opinions. See e.g. Matter of James Wilson Assoc., 965 F.2d 160, 172-173

(7th Cir. 1992) (“The architect could use what the engineer told him to

offer an opinion within the architect’s domain of expertise, but he

could not testify for the purpose of vouching for the truth of what the

engineer had told him - of becoming in short the engineer’s

spokesman.”); Villagomes v. Lab. Corp. of Am., No. 2:08-cv-00387-RLHGWF, 2010 WL 4628085, at *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 8, 2010) (“A testifying expert

may rely on the opinions of non-testifying experts as a foundation for

the opinions within the testifying expert’s field of expertise. Rule

703, however, is not a license for an expert witness to simply parrot

the opinions of non-testifying experts.”); Scott v. Ross, 140 F.3d 1275,

1286 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming district court’s decision to permit

expert testimony based in part on “collaboration with other academics”).

Further, it is unclear at this juncture how, and to what extent, Mr.

Twomey’s past work in this litigation may form the basis of Mr. Orsey’s

opinions. Therefore, this motion is denied. 

Motion in Limine No. 21

Defendants seek to preclude Mr. Orsay from “offer[ing]

testimony” on matters “other than the use of force[,] . . . includ[ing]:

the existence of customs and practices at the Main Jail; adequacy of

internal affairs investigations; supervision of correctional officers;

4

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 175 Filed 02/22/13 Page 4 of 7
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

training of correctional officers; ratification of actions by Main Jail

management[,] and medical testimony on the effects of blunt force trauma

and compliance holds.” (Defs.’ MIL to Exclude Opinions of Pls.’ Use-ofForce Expert 7:20-27.) Defendants argue that Mr. Orsay was disclosed as

a “use of force expert[,]” and “[a]s such, he should not be allowed to

offer testimony in th[ese other] areas.” (Id.)

Since it is unclear what evidence is involved in this motion,

it is DENIED. See Weiss v. La Suisse, Society D’Assurances Sur La Vie,

293 F. Supp. 2d 397, 407-08 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (denying motion to exclude

evidence for a “lack[] of specificity[,]” stating “[n]o particular

documents or testimony have been identified in the motion”).

Motion in Limine No. 22

Defendants seek to prevent Mr. Orsay from “offer[ing] opinions

based upon materials he reviewed after he completed his declaration, to

include testimony from the previous trial.” (Defs.’ MIL to Exclude

Opinions of Pls.’ Use-of-Force Expert 8:2-3.) Defendants argue:

The expert disclosure provisions of FRCP 26 require

that the written report of a retained expert

contain all opinions the witness will express and

the basis and reasons for them. Similarly, the

report must contain all data or other information

relied upon. Mr. Orsay, however, reviewed

information in the form of transcripts from the

prior trial after he submitted his declaration.

Such work does not comply with the requirements of

FRCP 26[,] and he should not be allowed to offer

any opinions based on such reviews.

(Id. at 8:3-9 (internal citations omitted).)

Plaintiffs rejoin as follows:

It is true that Mr. Orsay reviewed trial

transcripts after he submitted his report, but

before his deposition. However, the transcripts

were first obtained by Mr. Gorski on or about

January 9, 2013. The key component of each

transcript was the fact that each and every policy

making official and employee of the Defendant

attested that the use of force in all videos was in

5

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 175 Filed 02/22/13 Page 5 of 7
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

compliance with Department policy. Ergo, since Mr.

Orsay opined that the use of force was excessive in

each video, the testimony confirmed Mr. Orsay’s

opinion that such force was condoned and the

departmental norm.

Mr. Orsay’s production of the trial

transcripts and ability to testify was consistent

with an offering party’s ongoing duty to supplement

an expert report, and Defendant is not prejudiced

by supplementation in light of its opportunity to

question Mr. Orsay about the transcripts at his

deposition. . . .

In sum, Mr. Orsay's opinion has not changed[,]

the transcripts are merely consistent in that

respect, and Mr. Orsay was prepared to testify as

to the transcripts.

(Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ MIL to Exclude Opinions of Pls.’ Use-of-Force

Expert 21:21-22:8, ECF No. 170.)

“Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the

parties to disclose the identities of each expert and, for retained

experts, requires that the disclosure includes the experts’ written

reports.” Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817,

827 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)). Such reports must

contain, in part: “(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness

will express and the basis and reasons for them; (ii) the facts or data

considered by the witness in forming them; [and] (iii) any exhibits that

will be used to summarize or support them . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(2)(B). 

“Rule 37(c)(1) gives teeth to these requirements by forbidding

the use at trial of any information required to be disclosed by Rule

26(a) that is not properly disclosed.” Hoffman v. Constr. Protective

Servs., Inc., 541 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation

marks omitted). “Under Rule 37, exclusion of evidence not disclosed is

6

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 175 Filed 02/22/13 Page 6 of 7
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

appropriate unless the failure to disclose was substantially justified

or harmless.” Id. 

Although Mr. Orsay’s expert disclosure did not identify the

trial transcripts as a basis for his opinions, Plaintiffs have shown

that said omission is harmless since Mr. Orsay was questioned about and

produced the transcripts during his deposition. Further, Defendants have

not argued any prejudice from Mr. Orsay’s late disclosure of the trial

transcripts as a basis for his opinions. 

For the stated reasons, this motion is denied. 

Dated: February 22, 2013

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge

7

Case 2:06-cv-00457-GEB-AC Document 175 Filed 02/22/13 Page 7 of 7