Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00277/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00277-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. MUNOZ, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10cv277 JAH (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

STRIKE 

[Dkt. No. 121]

Plaintiff Rodney Brooks is a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis. On August 20, 2012, Brooks filed a motion to exclude the “expert testimony”

of defendants Munoz and Endrozo. [Dkt. No. 67.] The court granted that motion and

excluded Munoz and Endrozo from testifying as experts because their testimony would

be cumulative of the other designated expert, Special Agent Epperson, and because their

testimony as experts would be prejudicial. [Dkt. No. 80.] The court did not exclude

Munoz and Endrozo from testifying as lay witnesses. Id.

Over a year later, Defendants, in their expert disclosure dated December 5, 2013,

incorrrectly re-designated Munoz and Endrozo as expert witnesses. They also designated

defendants Hernandez, Cobb, Morris, Reid, Talbert, Steele and Contreras to testify as

experts. They say they did this inadvertently, and now withdraw the expert designations

of all Defendants. Opp’n, p.2 [Dkt. No. 123]. The court notes that those Defendants may

testify as percipient witnesses on their own behalf.

1 10cv277 JAH (NLS)

Case 3:10-cv-00277-JAH-NLS Document 128 Filed 02/24/14 Page 1 of 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

Also in the December 5, 2013 re-designation, Defendants designated Special Agent

Steve Epperson, who they named as an expert in their original designation, and whose

designation this court approved. But Defendants also designated four non-party

employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as

“percipient witnesses who were involved in the process of Plaintiff’s prison-gang

validation...[and who] should be allowed to provide expert testimony as to the policies

and procedures they and Defendants relied upon in acting as they did during Plaintiff’s

gang-validation procedures.” Opp’n, p.2. All four proposed expert witnesses “will

testify as to the CDCR’s gang validation procedures, whether those procedures were

properly applied and followed by Defendants in this case . . . , how they were applied,

and whether the evidence used to validate Plaintiff was reliable and sufficient to do so.”

Opp’n, p.4. 

As this court already explained in its November 9, 2012 order, a court may exclude

cumulative expert testimony. United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 431 F.3d 643, 659-660

(9th Cir. 2005). Here, Epperson, the prison gang expert assigned to R.J. Donovan

Correctional Facility, will testify as to gang validation proceedings at both the

institutional and review levels, including Plaintiff’s gang validation proceedings and the

operations of the Mexican Mafia. Opp’n, p.3; Dkt. No. 72, p.4. The proposed testimony

of the four non-parties Contreras, Rosenkrans, Marquez, and Harrison appears cumulative

of Epperson’s testimony. Defendants do not cite to any distinct policies or procedures

that any of these non-parties will testify to or how their testimony will otherwise differ

from Eppard’s and from each other’s testimony. See Engman v. City of Ontario, No. 10-

284, 2011 WL 2463178, at *13-14 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2011) (determining two expert’s

testimony is cumulative if there is a significant overlap). Therefore, the court finds that

the proposed testimony of the proposed “non-party experts” significantly overlaps with

Epperson’s testimony, and therefore, is cumulative. 

Further, the non-parties are, according to Defendants, percipient witnesses in this

case. Again, as the court already explained in its November 9, 2012 order:

2 10cv277 JAH (NLS)

Case 3:10-cv-00277-JAH-NLS Document 128 Filed 02/24/14 Page 2 of 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

A witness’s dual role of being a lay witness and expert witness creates concerns such as “unmerited credibility” for lay testimony, an increased danger of conveying the witness’s

sweeping conclusions, and difficulty for some jurors to

determine the line between lay testimony and expert testimony. U.S. v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893, 904 (9th Cir. 2007). [Non- parties Contreras, Rosenkrans, Marquez, and Harrison] intend to explain to the jury their actions in Plaintiff’s gang validation

proceedings. In doing so, it appears that [Contreras,

Rosenkrans, Marquez, and Harrison] are likely to provide

conclusions that justify their actions. It is also possible that

[Contreras, Rosenkrans, Marquez, and Harrison] will receive “unmerited credibility” on their factual story due to their

capacity as experts. This Court, therefore, finds that allowing [Contreras, Rosenkrans, Marquez, and Harrison] to testify as experts is prejudicial. 

Dkt. No. 80 p.4.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2014

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

3 10cv277 JAH (NLS)

Case 3:10-cv-00277-JAH-NLS Document 128 Filed 02/24/14 Page 3 of 3