Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01070/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01070-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

MARK BURAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-01070-TEH 

ORDER OVERRULING 

DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY 

OBJECTIONS 

 

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Defendants’ three-page reply brief argues that the testimony of witness Sirkka Erkkila and 

portions of Plaintiff Mark Buras’s declaration “should be deemed unreliable.” Reply at 

2-3. More specifically, Defendants’ concurrently filed evidentiary objections contend that 

Buras’s declaration is “self-serving” and “sham,” and that Erkkila “Cannot be Credited” 

because her “line of sight . . . was blocked by the Dodge Ram truck.” Evid. Obj. at 1-6. 

However, Buras’s challenged testimony is not the sort of “self-serving declaration 

that states only conclusions and not facts that would be admissible evidence,” and “the 

district court may not disregard a piece of evidence at the summary judgment stage solely 

based on its self-serving nature.” Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495, 497 (9th 

Cir. 2015). Nor have Defendants identified any “clear and unambiguous” inconsistencies 

between Buras’s declaration and any prior sworn testimony. Van Asdale v. Int’l Game 

Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2009). Defendants might question Buras’s 

credibility as a witness, but that is a question for the jury to decide. Likewise, whether 

Erkkila could or could not have seen what happened to Buras is a factual question for the 

jury. “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of 

legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is 

ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict.” Anderson v. Liberty 

Case 3:15-cv-01070-TEH Document 45 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

2 

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 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Accordingly, Defendants’ evidentiary objections 

are OVERRULED. 

Given the emphasis on the evidentiary objections in Defendants’ reply, it appears 

that Defendants might agree that summary judgment would be improper now that the 

Court has rejected those objections. Therefore, on or before August 8, 2016, Defendants 

shall file a supplemental brief (a) identifying which, if any, issues in their summary 

judgment motion they believe are not foreclosed by the Court’s evidentiary rulings and 

(b) addressing the arguments raised in Buras’s opposition on any such issues. To allow 

sufficient time for the Court to consider the supplemental briefing, the motion hearing is 

continued from August 15, 2016, to August 22, 2016, at 10:00 AM. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/02/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01070-TEH Document 45 Filed 08/02/16 Page 2 of 2