Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01569/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01569-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KIMBERLY DEEN, SHARON 

KNIFTON, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF REDDING, et al., 

Defendants. 

Civ. No. 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK

ORDER 

 On July 16, 2015, the court conducted a final pretrial conference. Dale Galipo and Vicki 

Sarmiento appeared for plaintiffs; Gary Brickwood appeared for defendants.1 

 After hearing, and good cause appearing, the court makes the following findings and 

orders: 

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

 This is a civil rights case. Plaintiffs Sharon Knifton and Kimberly Deen allege that the 

City of Redding Police Department and individual officers Jon Poletski, Robert Garnero, Jared 

Hebert and Brian Berg unlawfully seized Scott Deen and used excessive force against him that 

resulted in his death. The City of Redding and the individual officers contend that the use of 

lethal force was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances and deny any wrongful 

 1

 Erin Stagg, Mr. Brickwood’s colleague, observed from counsel’s table but did not 

formally appear. 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 18
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

conduct toward decedent. Plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of Scott Deen’s estate for injuries 

and pain and suffering they allege he sustained prior to his death. Plaintiffs also seek damages in 

the form of wrongful death damages for the loss of their familial relationship with him. 

JURISDICTION/VENUE 

 Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. Jurisdiction and venue 

are not contested. 

JURY/NON-JURY 

 The parties request a jury trial. They agree to eight jurors. 

CLAIMS TO BE TRIED 

 The following claims will be tried to the jury: Fourth Amendment claims (claims 1-3; 

detention and arrest, excessive force, and failure to summon medical care), and the Fourteenth 

Amendment substantive due process claim (claim 4; interference with familial relationship). 

Depending on the outcome of the summary judgment motion, Sharon Knifton’s state law claims 

of wrongful death, battery, and negligence (claims 7-9) may also be tried to the jury. 

 As will be confirmed in a forthcoming order, the court is granting summary judgment in 

favor of defendants on plaintiff Deen’s seventh, eighth, and ninth claims, respectively, of 

wrongful death against all defendants; battery against the City of Redding, Corporal Poletski, 

Officer Hebert, Officer Garnero and Officer Berg; and negligence against all defendants. 

Defendants’ summary judgment motion on the seventh, eighth and ninth claims of Sharon 

Knifton is pending, with supplemental briefing due by July 29, 2015. At the final pretrial 

conference, plaintiffs confirmed they are dismissing their fifth and sixth claims for municipal 

liability and supervisorial liability. 

UNDISPUTED FACTS 

A. At all relevant times, defendants Poletski, Hebert, Garnero and Berg were law 

enforcement officers employed by the City of Redding and were acting within the course 

and scope of their employment and under color of state law. 

B. The events giving rise to this action occurred on June 22, 2012 in the 8400 block of 

Valley View Drive in the City of Redding. 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 18
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

C. Defendant law enforcement officers Poletski, Hebert and Garnero were in the 8400 block 

of Valley View Drive when they contacted decedent Scott Deen. 

D. Defendant Officer Hebert made the initial contact with decedent Scott Deen. 

E. Corporal Poletski fired two rounds, one of which struck decedent. 

F. Scott Deen died from a single gunshot wound to the back. 

DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES 

Disputed Factual Issues Identified by Plaintiffs: 

1. Whether Officer Hebert had reasonable suspicion to detain decedent as he did not match 

the description of the reported “suspicious person.” 

2. Whether the take-down of Scott Deen exceeded the permissible scope of an investigatory 

stop. 

3. Whether Mr. Deen’s movements while he was prone on the ground were in response to 

the kicks and knee strikes by Officer Hebert, Officer Garnero, and Corporal Poletski who 

were piled on top of him, or whether Mr. Deen was resisting arrest. 

4. Whether the use of a taser in the drive-stun mode by Officer Hebert was excessive or 

unreasonable under the circumstances. 

5. Whether Mr. Deen had a knife at the time of the shooting. 

6. Whether shooting Mr. Deen in the back while Officer Garnero had Mr. Deen in a Nelson 

hold was excessive or unreasonable. 

7. Whether sending a K-9 to bite Mr. Deen after he had been shot was excessive or 

unreasonable use of force. 

8. Whether the delay in providing access to paramedics to treat Mr. Deen after he was shot 

was an unreasonable denial of medical care. 

Disputed Factual Issues Identified by Defendants (By Claim): 

A. Fourth Amendment Claims - First, Second and Third Claims for Relief: Unreasonable 

Detention and Arrest; Excessive Force; Failure to Summon Medical Care 

1. Whether the individual defendant officers’ use of force was reasonable under the 

totality of the circumstances. 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 18
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

2. Whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the individual defendant officers left 

decedent without medical aid or assistance for an unreasonable period of time. 

3. Whether decedent was injured as a result of an unreasonable use of force. 

4. Whether decedent was injured as a result of unreasonable delay in receiving medical 

care. 

5. The extent of any such injuries. 

6. The damages suffered by decedent. 

B. Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Claims – Fourth Claim for Relief: 

Interference with Familial Relationships 

1. Whether the individual defendant officers acted with deliberate indifference or 

reckless disregard with a purpose to harm unrelated to legitimate law enforcement 

objectives. 

2. Whether plaintiffs Sharon Knifton and Kimberly Deen were injured as a result of 

defendant officers’ deliberate indifference or reckless disregard. 

3. The damages suffered by plaintiffs. 

C. Seventh Claim for Relief: Wrongful Death (Sharon Knifton, unless summary judgment 

granted) 

1. Whether any of the individual defendant officers failed to use reasonable care to 

prevent harm to oneself or to others. 

2. Whether the individual defendant officers’ negligence, if any, caused injury to plaintiff 

Sharon Knifton. 

3. The damages suffered by plaintiff Sharon Knifton. 

D. Eighth and Ninth Claims for Relief: Battery and Negligence (unless summary judgment 

granted) 

1. Whether any of the individual defendant officers used unreasonable force against 

decedent. 

2. Whether the use of unreasonable force against decedent caused any injuries. 

3. The extent of any such injuries. 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 18
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

4. The damages suffered by decedent. 

E. State Law Affirmative Defenses and Immunities 

1. Whether decedent was comparatively at fault. 

2. Whether under California Penal Code §§ 835 and 835a, the defendant officers used 

reasonable force to effect an arrest, prevent an escape or overcome resistance. 

3. Whether the defendant officers reasonably feared for their safety or that of others, a 

question of fact. (If the jury decides this fact in favor of defendants, the court will 

determine their eligibility for immunity under California Government Code § 820.4, a 

question of law.) 

4. Whether, under California Penal Code § 834a, decedent had knowledge that he was 

subject to arrest and was obligated to submit to an arrest and failed to do so. 

F. Punitive Damages 

1. Whether any individual defendant officers acted with malice, oppression, or reckless 

disregard of decedent’s rights to justify an award of punitive damages. 

2. The amount of punitive damages, if any.2

SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION 

A. This lawsuit arises out of the alleged excessive force and alleged unlawful shooting of 

decedent by certain law enforcement officers of the Redding Police Department. The 

preshooting contact and shooting occurred on June 22, 2012 in the City of Redding, 

California. 

B. Decedent Scott Deen was 19 years old at the time of the incident. Decedent’s mother 

Kimberly Deen is presently 40 years old, and his grandmother Sharon Knifton is 60 years 

old. 

C. Decedent had and has no dependents, before or after death. 

DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 

 A. Evidentiary Issues Raised by Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine: 

 

2

 Defendants also identify qualified immunity as a question of fact, but the court considers it a 

matter of law. 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 18
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 

6

1. The admissibility of facts not known to the defendant officers at the time of their 

contact with decedent, including decedent’s prior criminal history, any mental health 

issues, and decedent’s “homeless” status. 

2. The admissibility of the defendant officers’ state of mind and/or their subjective fear 

during their contact with decedent. 

3. The admissibility of evidence regarding decedent’s drug use, including the postmortem toxicology results, and the testimony of defense toxicology expert Barry 

Gustin. 

4. The admissibility of evidence regarding Kimberly Deen’s alleged drug use, her 

relationships with different men, the whereabouts of her other children, or other 

character evidence. 

 B. Evidentiary Issues Identified by Defendants to be Addressed in Motions in Limine: 

1. The admissibility of testimony from plaintiff’s expert Roger Clark. 

2. The number of crime scene photos and autopsy photos of decedent to be admitted. 

3. The admissibility of evidence of or reference to any other officer-involved shooting 

incident. 

4. The admissibility of an outstanding arrest warrant for decedent from the State of 

Montana at the time of the incident. 

5. The admissibility of evidence of the deceased’s life situation and his relationship with 

plaintiffs Kimberly Deen and Sharon Knifton as it relates to damages claimed by Ms. 

Deen and Ms. Knifton. 

The schedule for hearing motions in limine is set out below. See pages 9-10 infra. 

STIPULATIONS/AGREED STATEMENTS 

 The parties stipulate that the defendant officers were acting under color of law and were 

acting in the course and scope of their employment with the City of Redding at the time of the 

incident. 

The parties do not seek presentation of evidence by an agreed statement. 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 6 of 18
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 

7

RELIEF SOUGHT 

 Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint seeks: compensatory damages, including both 

survival damages and wrongful death damages under federal and state law; funeral and burial 

expenses; punitive damages against the individual defendants; costs; and, reasonable attorneys’ 

fees as to all federal claims. With respect to survival damages, plaintiffs contend that decedent’s 

estate is entitled to recover damages for decedent’s pain and suffering prior to and up to the time 

of his death. 

POINTS OF LAW 

 The parties shall alert the court to disputes about the applicable law and legal standards. 

Trial briefs addressing these points more completely and in accordance with Local Rule 285 shall 

be filed with this court no later than seven days prior to the date of trial. 

DISMISSALS/ABANDONED ISSUES 

 Plaintiffs have dismissed defendants Chief Robert F. Paoletti and Officer Harry E. Bishop, 

IV. At the pretrial conference, as noted, plaintiffs dismissed their fifth claim for municipal 

liability and their sixth claim for supervisorial liability. 

WITNESSES 

 Each party may call any witnesses designated by the other. Plaintiffs’ witnesses are 

identified in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Defendants’ witnesses are 

identified in Exhibit 2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 

 A. The court will not permit any other witness to testify unless: 

1. The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose 

of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at the pretrial 

conference, or 

2. The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering 

party makes the showing required in “B,” below. 

 B. Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial, 

the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of the unlisted 

witnesses so the court may consider whether the witnesses shall be permitted to testify at trial. 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 7 of 18
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 

8

The witnesses will not be permitted unless: 

1. The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the discovery 

cutoff; 

2. The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of the 

witness; 

3. If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and 

4. If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony was 

provided to opposing parties. 

EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES 

 Plaintiffs’ exhibits are identified on Exhibit 3, incorporated herein. At trial, plaintiffs’ 

exhibits shall be listed numerically. 

 Defendants’ exhibits are identified on Exhibit 4, incorporated herein. At trial, defendant’s 

exhibits shall be listed alphabetically. 

 The court encourages the parties to generate a joint exhibit list to the extent possible. 

Joint Exhibits shall be identified as JX and listed numerically, e.g., JX-1, JX-2. 

 All exhibits must be premarked. 

 The parties must prepare exhibit binders for use by the court at trial, with a side tab 

identifying each exhibit in accordance with the specifications above. Each binder shall have an 

identification label on the front and spine. 

 The parties must exchange exhibits no later than fourteen days before trial. Any 

objections to exhibits are due no later than seven days before trial. 

 A. The court will not admit exhibits other than those identified on the exhibit lists 

referenced above unless: 

1. The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the purpose of 

rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably anticipated, or 

2. The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the proffering party 

makes the showing required in Paragraph “B,” below. 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 8 of 18
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 

9

 B. Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall promptly 

inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the court may 

consider their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received unless the proffering party 

demonstrates: 

1. The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier; 

2. The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their existence; 

3. The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically possible) to the 

opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the proffering party must show 

that it has made the exhibits reasonably available for inspection by the opposing 

parties. 

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS 

 Counsel must lodge the sealed original copy of any deposition transcript to be used at trial 

with the Clerk of the Court no later than seven days before trial. Defendants do not anticipate 

seeking introduction of depositions, answers to interrogatories or responses to request for 

admission other than to impeach a witness or in the event that a witness becomes unavailable for 

trial. 

FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTION PRACTICE 

 Neither party requests the re-opening of discovery. 

Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs’ state law claims is 

currently pending before the court, and an order will be issued shortly. As noted above, the court 

informed the parties at the conference that it intends to grant summary judgment to defendants as 

to plaintiff Deen’s claims 7, 8 and 9. The court requested further short briefing on Knifton’s 

claims 7, 8 and 9, due no later than July 29, 2015. See Minute Order, ECF No. 75. 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

 The court will hear motions in limine on August 10, 2015, the morning of trial. Plaintiffs 

have filed the following motions in limine, seeking specifically to exclude: 

1. Facts not known to defendant-officers at the time of their contact and interaction with 

the decedent, including his prior criminal history, his alleged homeless status, his 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 9 of 18
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 

10

alleged prior mental health issues, problems controlling his anger, association with a 

group known as “Insane Clown Posse” or the “Juggalos” and that decedent was in the 

vicinity of the incident to siphon gas. Mot. in Limine #1, ECF No. 67. 

2. Evidence regarding the defendant-officers’ subjective states of mind as related to 

plaintiffs’ excessive force claim. Mot. in Limine #2, ECF No. 68. 

3. Results of the toxicology test performed at the autopsy, as well as testimony by 

defendants’ expert Dr. Barry E. Guston about the results. Mot. in Limine #3, ECF No. 

70. 

4. Evidence about plaintiff Kimberly Deen’s character, specifically regarding her alleged 

drug use, transient lifestyle, her relationship with other men, and/or the whereabouts of 

her other children. Mot. in Limine #4, ECF No. 69. 

 Opposition to these motions is due no later than July 29, 2015, and any reply is due no 

later than August 5, 2015. 

Defendants’ motions in limine, if any, shall be filed no later than July 29, 2015, with 

oppositions due no later than August 5, 2015. 

 The court will decide any motion based upon the record before it at the time. Each ruling 

will be made without prejudice and is subject to proper renewal, in whole or in part, during trial. 

If a party wishes to contest a pretrial ruling, it must do so through a proper motion or objection, or 

otherwise forfeit appeal on such grounds. See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a); Tennison v. Circus Circus 

Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Where a district court makes a tentative in 

limine ruling excluding evidence, the exclusion of that evidence may only be challenged on 

appeal if the aggrieved party attempts to offer such evidence at trial.”) (alteration, citation and 

quotation omitted). In addition, if any challenges to expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell 

Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) are denied without prejudice, and a party wishes 

to renew a Daubert challenge at trial, it should alert the court, at which point the court may grant 

limited voir dire before such expert may be called to testify. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 10 of 18
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 

11

SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES 

 Defendants request bifurcation of the determination of an amount of punitive damages, if 

any. Plaintiffs agree to bifurcation of punitive damages, but request that predicate questions 

regarding punitive damages be included in the first phase verdict form. The court indicated it is 

not inclined to bifurcate the trial but is willing to hear additional argument on the issue on the first 

day of trial. 

IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS 

 The parties do not request appointment of an impartial expert. 

ATTORNEYS' FEES 

 Plaintiffs will seek attorneys’ fees as to all federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 

Local Rule 293 after the entry of judgment pursuant to regularly noticed motion. Defendants 

reserve the right to seek costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Local Rule 

293. 

ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE 

 Jury trial is set for August 10, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom Three before the 

Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller. Trial is anticipated to last 5 to 7 days. The parties are directed 

to Judge Mueller’s default trial schedule outlined at the “important information” link located on 

her web page on the court’s website. A proposed detailed schedule tailored to this case will be 

provided on the first day of trial. 

PROPOSED JURY VOIR DIRE AND PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

 The parties shall file any proposed jury voir dire seven days before trial. Each party will 

be limited to fifteen minutes of jury voir dire. 

 The court directs counsel to meet and confer in an attempt to generate a joint set of final 

jury instructions and verdicts. The parties shall file any such joint set of instructions no later than 

noon on August 7, 2015, identified as “Jury Instructions and Verdicts Without Objection.” To 

the extent the parties are unable to agree on all or some instructions and verdicts, their respective 

proposed instructions are also due no later than noon on August 7, 2015. 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 11 of 18
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 

12

 Counsel shall e-mail a copy of all proposed jury instructions and verdicts, whether agreed 

or disputed, as a word document to kjmorders@caed.uscourts.gov; all blanks in form instructions 

should be completed and all brackets removed. 

 Objections to proposed jury instructions may be raised or submitted on the first day of 

trial; each objection shall identify the challenged instruction and shall provide a concise 

explanation of the basis for the objection along with citation of authority. When applicable, the 

objecting party shall submit an alternative proposed instruction on the issue or identify which of 

his or her own proposed instructions covers the subject. 

MISCELLANEOUS 

 Trial briefs are due seven days before trial. 

SETTLEMENT 

 The parties participated in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 

Newman on April 14, 2015. The case did not settle. The parties do not request an additional 

settlement conference. 

OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER 

 Each party is granted seven days from the date of this order to file objections to the same. 

If no objections are filed, the order will become final without further order of this court. 

DATED: July 22, 2015. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 12 of 18
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 

13

EXHIBIT 1: PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST 

1. Kimberly Deen 

2. Sharon Knifton 

3. Jon Poletski 

4. Jared Hebert 

5. Robert Garnero 

6. Brian Berg 

7. Harry Bishop 

8. Joanna Bland 

9. Samantha Cheney 

10. Peggy Porter 

11. Butch Brown 

12. Jeremy Hester 

13. Logan Stonehouse 

14. Jeff Wallace 

15. Eric Niver 

16. David Mailloux 

17. Robert Goucher 

18. Roger Clark 

19. Susan Comfort, M.D. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 13 of 18
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 

14

EXHIBIT 2: DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED WITNESS LIST 

City of Redding Police Department 

1. Jon Poletski 

2. Brian Berg 

3. Robert Garnero 

4. Jared Hebert 

5. Rusty Bishop 

6. Greg Wilkes 

7. Will Williams 

8. Ronald Icely 

9. Aaron Holdeman 

10. Tracy Beaupre 

11. Joseph Labbe 

12. Levi Solada 

13. Peggy Porter 

14. Jeff Wallace 

15. Joanna Bland 

16. Michael Darling 

Shasta County Sheriff’s Department 

17. Logan Stonehouse 

18. Jeff Foster 

19. Darlene Perea 

20. Samantha Cheney 

21. Lisa Lozada 

22. Gene Randall 

23. Pat Kropholler 

24. Nick Thompson 

25. William Gardner 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 14 of 18
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 

15

26. Mark Halsam 

27. James Beaupre 

28. Ben Estill 

Shasta County District Attorney’s Office 

29. Randy Knox 

30. Bob Angulo 

Percipient Witnesses 

31. Robert Goucher 

32. David Mailloux 

33. Brian Gillette 

34. Kimberly Deen 

35. Paul Gerhard 

Medical Personnel 

36. Paramedic Jeremy Hester 

37. EMT Gregory Hermann 

38. Gregory Hartt,M.D. 

39. John Richey, Redding Fire Department 

40. Ross McFaull, Redding Fire Department 

Shasta County Coroner’s Office 

41. Teri Veazey 

42. Susan Comfort, M.D. Toxicology 

Toxicology 

43. Bill Posey 

Retained Experts 

44. Scott Seaman 

45. Jaco Swanepoel 

46. Barry E. Gustin, M.D 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 15 of 18
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 

16

EXHIBIT 3: PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT LIST 

1. Photos of Decedent Before the Incident 

2. Photos of Decedent with Family Before the Incident 

3. Photos of Decedent After the Incident 

4. Autopsy Photos 

5. Autopsy Report 

6. Funeral and Burial Expenses 

7. Death Certificate 

8. Photos of the Scene 

9. Photos of decedent at the Scene 

10. Photos of the Knife w/Evidence Marker 

11. Photos of blood evidence at the ccene 

12. Photos of patrol vehicles at the scene 

13. Photos of bullet strikes of patrol vehicle 

14. Radio Dispatch 

15. Diagrams of the Scene 

16. Initial Police Reports re Incident (I.D. only) 

17. Supplemental Police Reports re Incident (I.D. only) 

18. Supplemental Report by Ronald Icely, Jr. re Taser download (I.D. only) 

19. Taser Download (print out) 

20. Investigation Report by Samantha Cheney 

21. Crime Scene Log 

22. Diagrams of location of body 

23. Audio Interview of Jon Poletski and transcript 

24. Audio interview of Jared Hebert and transcript 

25. Audio interview of Robert Garnero and transcript 

26. Transcribed Statement of Brian Berg 

27. Exhibit 2A of Jared Hebert’s Deposition 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 16 of 18
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 

17

28. Exhibits 1-13 of Jon Poletski’s Deposition 

29. David Mailloux hand written map of scene 

30. Audio interview of David Mailloux and transcript 

31. Use of Force – Reporting Guidelines 

32. Taser Guidelines 

33. P.O.S.T. Learning Domains (relevant sections as identified by Roger Clark) 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 17 of 18
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 

18

EXHIBIT 4: DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST 

A. Photographs and videotape of the scene where the initial contact with decedent occurred 

B. Evidence technician diagrams of the scene where the initial contact with decedent 

occurred 

C. Photographs and videotape of the scene where decedent was located by the canine unit 

D. Shasta County Coroner’s Office Toxicology Report, blood sample and diagram of injuries 

to decedent 

E. Evidence technician diagrams of the scene where the decedent was located by the canine 

unit 

F. Photographs and videotape of decedent at the scene and during autopsy 

G. Photographs and videotape of Defendants Poletski, Garnero and Hebert 

H. Photographs of the gas siphoning equipment located at the scene 

I. Evidence Item 1014/7, the folding blade knife located at the scene 

J. Evidence Item 1016/11, ACE bandage, and photographs of evidence item 1016/11 at the 

scene and during autopsy. 

K. SHASCOM Radio Communication Records and recordings 

L. Redding Police Department written policies regarding Use of Force and Use of Police K-9 

M. Training records and certification for Police K-9 Cain 

N. Training records for Defendants Poletski, Hebert, Garnero and Berg 

O. Defendants reserve the right to use recorded statements and/or transcripts of recorded 

statements of witnesses for impeachment purposes, including the recorded statement of 

witnesses David Mailloux and Robert Goucher, Sharon Knifton and Kimberly Deen. 

Case 2:13-cv-01569-KJM-CMK Document 76 Filed 07/23/15 Page 18 of 18