Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04837/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04837-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GORDON SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER McNACK, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-4837 EMC

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

IN LIMINE AND DEFENDANTS’

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S

EXHIBITS

(Docket Nos. 155, 168-69)

On May 10, 2010, the Court conducted a hearing on (1) a new motion in limine filed by

Defendants, (2) Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s exhibits, and (3) Defendants’ previous motion

in limine on which the Court had conditionally ruled. This order memorializes the Court’s rulings

made at the hearing.

A. Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Docket No. 168)

Defendants have asked the Court to bar Plaintiff’s witnesses and counsel from referring to

the use of force by police in other mainstream cases – e.g., the Rodney King beating and other

similar situations. Defendants argue that the evidence is irrelevant and, even if relevant, unduly

prejudicial. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ motion. 

Based on Plaintiff’s oral statement of nonopposition, as well as the Court’s concurrence with

Defendants that what is relevant in this case is what happened to Plaintiff, not what happened to

other people, the Court GRANTS this motion.

Case 3:06-cv-04837-EMC Document 170 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 The Court notes that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), an expert report is

“‘not required as a prerequisite to a treating physician expressing opinions as to causation, diagnosis,

prognosis and extent of disability where they are based on the treatment.’” First Nat’l Mortg. Co. v.

Federal Realty Inv. Trust, No. C-03-02013RMW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57113, at *45 (N.D. Cal. Aug.

3, 2006).

2

B. Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Exhibits

1. Third-Party Documents

With respect to documents that Plaintiff obtained from third parties (e.g., medical records,

medical bills, bank records), the Court overrules Defendants’ objections. Under the Court’s case

management order, Defendants should have filed their objections by April 19, 2010. Defendants,

however, did not file their objections until May 7, 2010, which is in essence the day before trial. 

The objections therefore are deemed waived. The Court notes that, had Defendants raised the

objections earlier, then Plaintiff could have dealt with them, e.g., by obtaining a declaration from the

appropriate custodian of record to establish that the documents are business records. See Fed. R.

Evid. 803(6) (hearsay exception for business records); Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) (self-authentication for

business records). 

The Court further notes that, at the hearing, Defendants conceded that they did not in fact

believe the third-party documents to be inauthentic. Moreover, Defendants admitted that they did

not have a real hearsay objection because Plaintiff likely could have obtained a declaration from the

appropriate custodian of record to establish the business records hearsay exception. Defendants,

however, argued that, with respect to the medical records, the evidence should still be excluded

because they contain expert opinions. The problem for Defendants is that they never raised this

objection by April 19 in compliance with the Court’s case management order. Moreover, even in

the untimely objections that Defendants submitted on May 7, there was never an objection on this

basis. The Court therefore deems the objection waived.1

2. Photographs

With respect to the photographs of Mr. Simpson’s alleged injuries, the Court conditionally

overrules Defendants’ objections. The best evidence objection is without merit. The advisory

committee notes for Federal Rule of Evidence 1002 demonstrate that it is permissible for Plaintiff to

Case 3:06-cv-04837-EMC Document 170 Filed 05/10/10 Page 2 of 4
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

testify about his injuries and then show the photographs to confirm and visually illustrate what those

injuries were. See Fed. R. Evid. 1002, 1972 advisory committee notes (“The usual course is for a

witness on the stand to identify the photograph . . . as a correct representation of events which he

saw or of a scene with which he is familiar. In fact, he adopts the picture as his testimony, or, in

common parlance, uses the picture to illustrate his testimony. Under these circumstances, no effort

is made to prove the contents of the picture, and the rule is inapplicable.”). 

As to Defendants’ objections based on lack of foundation and authentication, it appears that

Plaintiff will be able to authenticate the photographs and lay a proper foundation for their

admissibility based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation that Plaintiff took the pictures himself

shortly after the alleged incident at issue. The objection is thus overruled subject to Plaintiff laying 

a proper foundation.

3. Plaintiff’s Documents

With respect to Plaintiff’s own documents -- e.g., internal documents about his business --

the Court conditionally sustains Defendants’ objections. The documents are hearsay unless Plaintiff

is able to provide testimony establishing the applicability of the business records or other hearsay

exception.

C. Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Docket No. 155)

Previously, the Court conditionally permitted Plaintiff to ask Defendant Officer Waybright

about his alleged use of excessive force on prior occasions. The ruling allowed Defendants to ask

the Court to reconsider its ruling after they obtained further information about whether there were

any incidents of alleged use of excessive force previous to the incident at issue. See Docket No. 163

(final pretrial conference order).

At the hearing, Defendants and Plaintiff represented to the Court that there appeared to be

only one prior incident which allegedly involved the use of excessive force. Plaintiff argued that

this evidence should be admitted because it is relevant to his claim against the City. But Plaintiff

has provided no specifics about this prior incident, and, even if the prior incident were similar to that

at issue in the instant case, one prior incident hardly seems sufficient to give rise to a plausible

theory of official policy or custom or deliberate indifference. See, e.g., City of Canton v. Harris, 489

Case 3:06-cv-04837-EMC Document 170 Filed 05/10/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

U.S. 378, 390 n.10 (1989) (noting that “[i]t could also be that the police . . . so often violate

constitutional rights that the need for further training must have been plainly obvious to the city

policymakers, who, nevertheless, are ‘deliberately indifferent’ to the need”) (emphasis added);

Nadell v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 268 F.3d 924, 929 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that a municipal

“policy must result from a deliberate choice made by a policy-making official, and may be inferred

from widespread practices or ‘evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the errant

municipal officers were not discharged or reprimanded’”).

The Court ruled that evidence related to the alleged use of excessive force by Officer

Waybright on a prior occasion is inadmissible. Subsequently, Plaintiff withdrew his Monell claim

thus making this motion moot.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 155, 168, and 169.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04837-EMC Document 170 Filed 05/10/10 Page 4 of 4