Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02502/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02502-3/pdf.json

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

---

1

5:15-cv-02502-RMW

FURTHER ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE

RS

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SHIOW-HUEY CHANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02502-RMW 

FURTHER ORDER REGARDING 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 49, 71, 80, 81, 82, 89

Following the pretrial conference in this matter, the court granted defendants’ first, fifth, 

and seventh motions in limine and allowed the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding 

defendants’ second, third, and sixth motions in limine.1 Dkt. No. 71. Having reviewed the parties’ 

supplemental submissions, the court amends its rulings as follows.2

A. Motion in Limine 2 to Exclude Outcome of Plaintiff’s Criminal Trial 

Denied With Limiting Instruction. In her supplemental submissions, plaintiff presents 

evidence that she incurred attorneys’ fees to defend against criminal charges that were later 

dismissed. See Dkt. No. 82 at 7-8, Dkt. No. 83-2. Plaintiff argues that she should be able to discuss 

 

1

The court found that defendants’ fourth motion in limine to exclude prior complaints or 

investigations or other lawsuits related to the deputy defendants was moot. Dkt. No. 71 at 3.

2

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a reply in support of her offer of proof, Dkt. No. 89, is 

DENIED for failure to show good cause. 

Case 5:15-cv-02502-RMW Document 104 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 3
2

5:15-cv-02502-RMW

FURTHER ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE

RS

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

Northern District of California

the dismissal as part of her damages case. Defendants’ brief in opposition does not address this 

issue. Instead, defendants submitted a limiting instruction that they argue should be presented to 

the jury in the event that the court allows plaintiff to discuss the dismissal of criminal charges:

Ladies and gentlemen, you have heard testimony that the criminal 

charges against Plaintiff arising out of her June 11, 2014, arrest were 

dismissed. Charges may be dismissed for a variety of reasons that 

have no bearing on any issues that you have to decide in this case.

Dkt. No. 80. Plaintiff does not oppose reading this instruction to the jury. Dkt. No. 86. 

Accordingly, the court will allow plaintiff to discuss the dismissal of criminal charges against her 

and will provide the stipulated supplemental instruction above to the jury. 

B. Motion in Limine 3 to Exclude Evidence of Other Cases Brought Against 

Defendant Deputies

Granted. Plaintiff argues that she should be able to discuss the case of Hao v. Santa Clara 

County Sheriff's Office et al.—a case in which a plaintiff had been falsely accused of dental 

fraud—to show a pattern of misconduct by Deputy Forest and the County’s failure to discipline 

him for constitutional violations. Evidence of alleged police misconduct may be admissible under 

Rule 404(b) if a four-part test is satisfied: 

(1) there must be sufficient proof for the jury to find that the 

defendant committed the other act; (2) the other act must not be too 

remote in time; (3) the other act must be introduced to prove a 

material issue in the case; and (4) the other act must, in some cases, 

be similar to the offense charged.

Duran v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). “Even if 

all four conditions are met, the evidence may still be excluded if under Rule 403, the probative 

value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Id. at 1133.

The Hao case fails the test for admissibility set forth in Duran. Dr. Hao’s arrest occurred in 

2007, which was seven years before Dr. Chang’s arrest. Moreover, while the County’s deliberate 

indifference to the deputies’ alleged excessive use of force is a material issue in the instant case, 

there is no indication that Hao involved excessive force.3The marginal probative value of Hao to 

 

3

To the extent that plaintiff relies on the fact that Dr. Hao and Dr. Chang are both ChineseAmerican, the court notes that plaintiff has not asserted an equal protection claim. 

Case 5:15-cv-02502-RMW Document 104 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 3
3

5:15-cv-02502-RMW

FURTHER ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE

RS

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

Northern District of California

plaintiff’s supervisory liability claim is outweighed by the significant danger of unfair prejudice 

under Rule 403. Reference to the Hao suit could easily cause the jury to want to punish Forest for 

actions unrelated to his contact with Dr. Chang. Moreover, the considerable effort required to 

compare and contrast Hao from the instant case would waste the jury’s time with collateral issues.

C. Motion in Limine 5 to Exclude Reference to Forest’s Phone Conversation En 

Route to Jail

Granted. Plaintiff has withdrawn her opposition to defendants’ motion concerning a cell 

phone call placed by Deputy Forest. However, plaintiff argues that “the Court should further issue 

an order excluding evidence of all events subsequent to the unlawful use of force, except for 

evidence of damages sustained due to the arrest, and Deputy Forest’s “5150” statement in Dr. 

Chang’s presence.” Dkt. No. 82 at 8. Plaintiff’s request is an untimely motion in limine and is 

denied. Even if plaintiff’s request were not procedurally defective, the court would still deny it at 

least because plaintiff does not specifically define when the allegedly unlawful use of force 

concluded or what type of damages evidence would be admissible.

D. Motion in Limine 6 Regarding Forest’s Use of Racial Slurs

Granted. The court gave plaintiff the opportunity to submit an offer of proof to suggest that 

Forest’s alleged use of racial slurs is relevant to a material issue in this case, but she failed to do 

so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02502-RMW Document 104 Filed 07/18/16 Page 3 of 3