Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05905/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05905-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MANNICK,

Plaintiff, No. C 03-5905 PJH 

v. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER AND ORDER

RE PRETRIAL MOTIONS

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this final pretrial

order is hereby entered and shall control the course of the trial unless modified by a

subsequent order. The pretrial statements of the parties are incorporated herein except as

modified by the court's ruling on the pretrial motions and objections.

I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude evidence of defendant’s expert

witness Douglas Goodin, M.D., is DENIED. A motion to exclude an expert

witness from testifying is not a proper subject for a motion in limine, as it is

not a motion seeking to preclude a party from introducing a particular item of

evidence. Moreover, there is no evidence that Dr. Goodin reviewed or

attempted to review plaintiff’s medical records, and there is nothing

confidential in the letter sent by plaintiff’s counsel to the UCSF MS Center.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude evidence of witnesses listed in

defendants’ supplemental disclosure is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion does not

identify the witnesses that he seeks to exclude from testifying. Moreover, a

motion to exclude testimony at trial as a sanction for violations of Rule 26 is

not properly brought as a motion in limine.

Case 4:03-cv-05905-PJH Document 258 Filed 07/14/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2

3. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude evidence conflicting with

defendants’ response to plaintiff’s Request for Admissions No. 49 is DENIED. 

Magistrate Judge Spero has already ruled that defendants may withdraw the

admission and amend their response. In addition, evidence regarding the 4th

floor shower is not relevant to any issue remaining in the case.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude evidence of defendants’ expert

witnesses Marcus Hibser, James Terry, and Douglas Goodin, M.D., for failure

to comply with Rule 26 is DENIED. A motion to exclude an expert witness

from testifying is not a proper subject for a motion in limine. In addition, with

regard to Hibser, the testimony regarding the 4th floor shower is not relevant

to any issue remaining in the case, and defendants have indicated their intent

to withdraw Hibser as an expert. With regard to Terry and Dr. Goodin,

plaintiff has not established any prejudice from the minor omissions – since

remedied – in the expert reports.

5. The court reserves its ruling on defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to

preclude evidence related to issues that have been summarily adjudicated,

pending the decision on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (and the request

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration).

6. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 to preclude and/or limit testimony of

plaintiff’s expert witnesses Peter Margen, Robert Johnson, and Rosabel

Young, M.D., for violations of Rule 26 and/or other grounds is GRANTED, in

accordance with Magistrate Judge Spero’s June 23, 2006, ruling on

defendants’ Rule 37 motion. The court reserves its ruling on defendants’ 

motion to preclude and/or limit the testimony of plaintiff’s expert Paul Berg,

pending the decision on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

7. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude evidence of barriers that did

not directly affect plaintiff personally during his hospitalization is GRANTED,

based on the representation by plaintiff’s counsel that plaintiff does not intend

to present such evidence.

8. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude all testimony and evidence

regarding Kaiser’s finances is DENIED, as resolution of the claims remaining

in the case may require consideration of Kaiser’s finances.

9. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5 to exclude all evidence regarding D.J.

Agnew’s experiences as a patient at Kaiser is GRANTED. This evidence is

not relevant to any issue in the case. 

10. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 to exclude all evidence regarding the 4th

floor roll-in shower is GRANTED, as indicated above. 

11. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 to preclude any mention of settlement

offers and/or defendants’ Rule 68 offer in this case is GRANTED. Evidence

of settlements or efforts to settle is inadmissible under Federal Rule of

Evidence 408.

12. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 to preclude any mention of the consent

decree and order entered in this case is GRANTED, for the reasons stated

with regard to defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7.

13. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 9 to preclude any reference to the class

action filed against defendants by Disability Rights Advocates and/or the 

Case 4:03-cv-05905-PJH Document 258 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

settlement agreement in that case is GRANTED, for the reasons stated with

regard to defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7. In addition, evidence of the

DRA case is not relevant to any issue in the present case.

14. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 10 to preclude any reference to the study

commissioned by defendants in 1993 to assess architectural barriers in

Kaiser’s Northern California facilities (the Favro Study) is DENIED. However,

only those portions of the Favro Study that are relevant to the issues

remaining in the case will be admitted.

II. DAUBERT MOTIONS

In their Daubert motions, defendants seek to limit the testimony of plaintiff’s experts

rather than to exclude them as witnesses altogether. 

1. Peter Margen

Defendants’ motion to preclude testimony of plaintiff’s expert Peter Margen on

issues relating to whether certain disputed remodeling projects at Kaiser Oakland Hospital

were “readily achievable” under the ADA and relating to whether certain construction work

at Kaiser “triggered” a requirement to comply with federal and/or state accessibility

requirements is GRANTED. Margen is not qualified by experience and/or training to render

opinions on those issues because he is neither a construction expert nor a financial expert. 

Moreover, he will not be permitted to state opinions as to those issues, in part because the

determination whether construction or remodeling required to make the facility ADAcompliant was “readily achievable” or whether construction work “triggered” a requirement

to comply with accessibility requirements involves legal questions, and because such

testimony would usurp the function of the jury to determine the facts in the case. The court

finds, however, that Margen is qualified by experience and/or training to testify as to the

existence of barriers at Kaiser Oakland Hospital. 

2. Robert W. Johnson

Defendants’ motion to preclude testimony of plaintiff’s expert Robert W. Johnson as

to whether it was “readily achievable” for Kaiser to provide on accessible patient room at

Kaiser Oakland Hospital is GRANTED, for the reasons stated above with regard to Peter

Margen. The court finds, however, that Johnson is qualified by experience and training to

testify as to the overall financial resources of defendants and to calculate the cost of 

Case 4:03-cv-05905-PJH Document 258 Filed 07/14/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

plaintiff’s future medical costs. 

3. Arthur S. Shorr

Defendants’ motion to preclude testimony of plaintiff’s expert Arthur S. Shorr

regarding the reasonableness of Kaiser’s policies of accommodating disabled patients is

GRANTED, as there is no evidence that Shorr has read Kaiser’s policies regarding disabled

patients, or that he is an expert in the requirements of the ADA or California disability laws. 

Shorr testified in his deposition that he never received any Kaiser policies or procedures

from which he could determine what Kaiser’s policy is or was with respect to treating or

caring for patients, and that he was not an expert in the ADA and had never provided

consulting with regard to ADA compliance. 

Defendants’ motion to preclude Shorr’s testimony regarding the impact that

providing an accessible patient room would have had on Kaiser’s hospital operations is

GRANTED. While Shorr appears qualified to provide opinions as to hospital administration

generally, there is no evidence that Shorr has any knowledge of or has performed any

analyses of Kaiser’s hospital operations. For example, Shorr testified in his deposition that

he had no data with which to refute Kaiser’s claim that it is occupationally very difficult for

Kaiser Oakland to run at an 85% occupancy level, that he had no figures for bed-days

available at any point in time for Kaiser Oakland, and that he had no information regarding

the physical layout of Kaiser Oakland.

Defendants’ motion to preclude Shorr’s testimony regarding bed confinement 

and bed census management is GRANTED, as Shorr has admitted that he lacks the

expertise to render opinions regarding the clinical needs of particular patients.

4. Rosabel Young, M.D.

Defendants’ motion to preclude testimony of plaintiff’s expert Dr. Rosabel Young

with regard to the effect on plaintiff’s condition of the stress and/or depression he suffered

as a result of his experiences when he was hospitalized at Kaiser Oakland in January 2003

is DENIED, subject to the limitations imposed by Judge Spero’s June 23, 2006, ruling on

defendants’ Rule 37 motion. However, it appears questionable whether any significant 

Case 4:03-cv-05905-PJH Document 258 Filed 07/14/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

weight can be accorded Dr. Young’s opinions. While Dr. Young – a neurologist who has 

treated numerous patients suffering from MS – is arguably qualified to render opinions

regarding the effects of MS on a patient suffering from that disease, there is no evidence

that Dr. Young has recently reviewed the medical literature regarding the effects of stress 

or depression on a person suffering from MS, has written any articles on MS or on the

effects of stress or depression on a person suffering from MS, has ever taught any courses

on MS, has ever published a book on MS, has ever participated in any clinical research

trials regarding MS, or has ever previously provided expert testimony on the effects of

stress or depression on a person suffering from MS. 

III. MOTION TO BIFURCATE

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate the trial of liability from damages is DENIED.

IV. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS

Plaintiffs’ objections to defendants’ exhibits are STRICKEN.

V. TRIAL SCHEDULE AND TIME LIMITS

Trial will take place on 8 court days commencing August 7, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to

1:30 p.m., with two fifteen-minute breaks. Each side will be permitted 12 hours for opening

statements, direct examination of witnesses, and cross-examination of witnesses. Closing

arguments will not be included in the time allotment, and will take place no later than

August 18, 2006.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS

Defendants may submit supplemental voir dire questions, no later than July 18,

2006. The parties shall submit jointly-prepared case-specific jury instructions and form of

verdict, no later than July 26, 2006, 2 days following the mandatory settlement conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2006 ________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-05905-PJH Document 258 Filed 07/14/06 Page 5 of 5