Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02626/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02626-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL L. HELTSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT STEVEN HARRIS, OFFICER C.

DECIOUS, OFFICER A. MANDELL, OFFICER

G. LEWIS, and DOES ONE through TEN,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-2626 CW

ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN

LIMINE

On August 8, 2007, the Court held a pre-trial conference. At

that hearing, the Court made the following evidentiary rulings:

(1) Defendants' motion in limine to exclude the testimony of

Plaintiff's Medical Expert, Dr. Edward Miranda, is granted in part.

Defendants' arguments that Dr. Miranda is a recent graduate and has

only testified twice as an expert are unavailing. Dr. Miranda is a

medical doctor. Therefore, the Court finds that Dr. Miranda's

testimony with respect to medical issues is, as a general matter,

relevant and reliable. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; Daubert v. Merrell

Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-3 (1993).

Defendants also argue, and the Court agrees, that Dr.

Case 4:06-cv-02626-CW Document 65 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Miranda's opinions regarding the likelihood that Plaintiff was

under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of his arrest

are not reliable because they are not based upon sufficient facts

or data. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. Plaintiff may not elicit

testimony from Dr. Miranda regarding methamphetamine intoxication.

Defendants argue that Dr. Miranda is not qualified to testify

regarding the cause of Plaintiff's broken arm. However, Dr.

Miranda is a medical doctor and Defendants have not produced any

argument or evidence that a medical doctor is not qualified to

testify regarding these matters. 

The parties agree that Dr. Miranda will not testify regarding

the cause of any of Plaintiff's dental injuries.

(2) Defendants may not introduce any evidence of the postarrest investigation or any contraband discovered in the course of

that investigation unless such evidence becomes admissible as

impeachment evidence.

(3) Defendants may not introduce any evidence of the charges

or convictions stemming from Plaintiff's arrest, except for the

charge and conviction for violation of California Penal Code § 69,

unless such evidence becomes admissible as impeachment evidence. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 8/13/07

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02626-CW Document 65 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 2