Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00305/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00305-13/pdf.json

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY WARD, )

) 2:04-cv-0305-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

)

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, a ) 

Political Division of State of )

California; POLICE OFFICER )

D. BAKER; POLICE OFFICER EVANS; )

and POLICE OFFICER RAMIREZ, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

On March 2, 2007, Defendants proposed revisions to the jury

instructions and verdict form. (Decl. of Gayle K. Tonon Regarding

Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Form.) Plaintiff filed an

objection the same day, in which he essentially argues the proposals

are untimely and “amount to an ambush.” (Decl. of H. Ty Kharazi in

Opp’n to Req. for Am. to the Jury Instructions.)

Since the jury instructions should be stated in plain,

understandable language that helps “the jurors to concentrate on the

question[s] at hand,” some of Defendants’ proposed changes to the jury

Case 2:04-cv-00305-GEB -DAD Document 79 Filed 03/05/07 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

1 Defendants’ proposed Instructions 45, 46, 47, and 52 are

rejected since they are untimely and are adequately covered by other

instructions. Defendants’ proposed Instruction 48 is unnecessary in

light of the stated or indicated limited bases on which exhibits K-3 and

K-4 were used at trial. Defendants’ proposed Instruction 50 is rejected

because it is untimely and has not been shown to be an issue preserved

for trial. Defendants’ proposed Instruction 51 is rejected because it

is untimely and, other than what is covered by Nov. 1 Instruction 31,

has not been shown to be an issue preserved for trial.

2 The South Lake Tahoe Police Department has been deleted from

the caption.

2

instructions are adopted. Achor v. Riverside Golf Club, 117 F.3d 339,

341 (7th Cir. 1997). 

Therefore, the following changes are made to the jury

instructions filed on November 1, 2005 (“Nov. 1 Instructions”):1

1. Nov. 1 Instructions 7 and 8 are stricken;

2. In Nov. 1 Instruction 12, the words “Police Department” are

deleted;2

3. Nov. 1 Instruction 16 is amended as Defendants request, but

since Nov. 1 Instructions 16 and 17 are subsumed in

Defendants’ proposed Instruction 16, Nov. 1 Instructions 16

and 17 are deleted; 

4. In Nov. 1 Instruction 33, the Ninth Circuit’s model jury

instruction on deliberate indifference is substituted in

place of what was proposed in Nov. 1 Instruction 33;

5. Defendants’ proposed Instruction 49 is similar to the second

portion of Nov. 1 Instruction 24, but proposed Instruction

49 is given in lieu of the second portion of Nov. 1

Instruction 24, since it is more pertinent to the issues

tried;

6. At line 2 of Nov. 1 Instruction 34, the word “it” is

replaced by the word “he”;

Case 2:04-cv-00305-GEB -DAD Document 79 Filed 03/05/07 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

3 Minor changes were also made to the instructions and were

provided to counsel during trial; specifically, the word “harmed” was

replaced by the word “battered” in line 1 of Nov. 1 Instruction 24, and

the word “all” was replaced by the word “each” in line 3 of Nov. 1

Instruction 24.

3

7. Language is added to Nov. 1 Instruction 40 in accordance

with California Jury Instructions – Civil, BAJI § 7.94.3

Additionally, the following changes are made to the revised

verdict form filed on March 1, 2007:

1. A new question 8 is added and the previous question 8 has

been changed to question 9;

2. A question 10 has been added;

3. Directory language has been added and/or amended

accordingly.

Dated: March 5, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00305-GEB -DAD Document 79 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 3