Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02656/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02656-8/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

DAVID M. TUTTELMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, SAN JOSE POLICE

DEPARTMENT, SAN JOSE POLICE

OFFICER ANTHONY LUISI, SAN JOSE

POLICE OFFICER RONALD BAYS,

Defendants. /

No. C 02-02656 WHA

ORDER APPROVING PARTIES’

STIPULATED ORDER RE

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS

The Court approves the parties’ stipulated form order regarding their motions in limine. 

The Court, however, wishes to make the following clarifications:

1. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1:

Defendants seek to exclude seven separate areas of opinion which plaintiff’s expert

Frank Saunders was expected to give at trial. The expert witness testimony of Frank Saunders

and all other experts shall be limited by the following standards:

(a) To the extent an expert report was prepared for any retained

expert, the expert will be limited to what is in his or her report. Parties cannot

remedy any deficiencies by referring to any subsequent deposition. 

(b) The expert will not be allowed to give any testimony regarding

what the law states. 

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 377 Filed 10/17/06 Page 1 of 3
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

(c) The experts cannot testify as to what is in someone’s mind.

(d) The experts must make it clear that they are testifying on an

assumed set of facts.

This motion is GRANTED TO THE EXTENT STATED. 

2. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2:

Defendants seek to exclude evidence regarding various aspects of the criminal

prosecution arising from plaintiff’s arrest by defendants. The motion is GRANTED IN PART. 

The jury may be advised of the following facts at trial: 

(a) Plaintiff was arrested for a felony violation of Penal Code section

243 (Battery on a Police Officer), and a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code

section 148 (Resisting or Obstructing Peace Officer); 

(b) Plaintiff was taken to the police station and booked on these

charges; 

(c) The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office eventually

charged plaintiff with misdemeanor offenses, not felony charges; and 

(d) The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office eventually

allowed plaintiff to plead guilty to a vehicle code infraction (Obstructed View of

License Plate). The Court shall instruct the jury that it need not be concerned

with or speculate regarding what happened during the criminal prosecution, and

that what happened in the criminal prosecution is not determinative of the issues

in this case and should not influence any of the decisions the jury has to make in

this case. Plaintiff is barred from introducing any evidence of either of the state

court orders regarding his motion to suppress evidence in the underlying criminal

action. 

3. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3:

Defendants seek to exclude evidence regarding prior internal affairs complaints against

the defendant officers and evidence of additional misconduct complaints made against other

officers within the San Jose Police Department. The motion is GRANTED without prejudice. 

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 377 Filed 10/17/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

If plaintiff wishes to introduce evidence of any internal affairs complaints, the Court will

entertain an offer of proof. Plaintiff must give defendants at least 48 hours’ advance notice of

such an offer so defendants will be able to respond. 

4. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4:

Defendants seek to exclude evidence and argument that the police had no legitimate basis

for the initial vehicle stop and that the stop was conducted pursuant to some improper pretext. 

The motion is denied with limitations. The jury may be presented with brief evidence of what

led up to plaintiff’s vehicle stop. Specifically, the basic facts of the stop, what the officers saw,

why the officers stopped the plaintiff, and all conversation leading up to the stop should be

presented. Plaintiff is barred, however, from introducing any evidence or argument that the

officers had no right to stop him. The jury will be advised that no claim is made that the stop

itself was unlawful. 

5. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5:

Defendants seek to exclude evidence or arguments that they should have employed less

intrusive measures to detain or search plaintiff during the underlying traffic stop. The motion is

DENIED. This issue should be addressed in the jury instructions. 

6. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1:

Plaintiff seeks to exclude testimony from defendants’ experts Lt. David Cavallaro and

Dr. Beth Keegstra. The motion is denied. Defendants were not required to provide expert

reports for these witnesses since they are not retained experts. 

7. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2:

Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence regarding plaintiff’s employment history. The motion

is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2006. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 377 Filed 10/17/06 Page 3 of 3