Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05172/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05172-1/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL WAYNE GARNER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-05172-EDL 

ORDER FOLLOWING PRE-TRIAL 

CONFERENCE 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 60-74, 76-79, 81-83, 85-88 

On July 7, 2016, the Court held a pretrial conference in this case. For the reasons stated at 

the conference and in this Order, the Court orders as follows. 

I. TRIAL SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURE 

1. Trial in this case will begin on Monday, July 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. The first day of trial will 

consist of non-argumentative “mini opening statements” (five minutes or less), jury selection, 

opening statements, reading of the preliminary jury instructions, and Plaintiff beginning its case. 

Counsel shall report to the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. 

2. Generally, the trial schedule shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with two 15-minute breaks 

and a 45-minute lunch. Counsel shall arrive by no later than 8:30 a.m. to set up and discuss any 

outstanding issues with the Court outside the presence of the jury. 

3. Counsel shall have up to 30 minutes for opening statements and up to one hour for closing 

statements. 

4. Plaintiff shall have up to 7 hours of trial time to present its case, and Defendants shall have 

up to 7 hours of trial time to present their defense. The trial shall be completed, and the case 

turned over to the jury by no later than Thursday, July 28, 2016. 

5. The jury will consist of eight jurors. 

Case 3:14-cv-05172-EDL Document 92 Filed 07/11/16 Page 1 of 7
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

6. The Parties shall meet and confer and thereafter file a joint brief, neutral statement of the 

case to be read to the jury panel during voir dire, as well as a list of witnesses and counsel to be 

provided to the jury panel during voir dire, by Thursday, July 14, 2016. The Parties shall also 

meet and confer to determine whether to request that the Court’s Office of Jury Administration 

administer a questionnaire to potential jurors, and, if so, submit a joint proposed questionnaire by 

Thursday, July 14, 2016. 

7. The Court will disallow Plaintiff’s first proposed voir dire question (regarding the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s investigation into SFPD), and will allow his second, third, and fourth 

proposed voir dire questions. 

8. During jury selection, each side will be able to exercise up to three peremptory challenges 

(alternating) and any “for cause” challenges outside the presence of the jury. 

II. STIPULATIONS 

1. The Parties have stipulated as follows: 

 • There was probable cause for plaintiff’s detention and arrest. 

 • Plaintiff seeks no damages for loss of income in the past or future as a result of his injuries. 

• The parties stipulate to a procedure for the bifurcation of the amount of punitive damages at 

trial. A declaration of assets will be prepared by Officer Harris under oath that will be 

provided to jury for their consideration during a second phase of deliberation only if the jury 

finds that punitive damages are warranted. 

• The parties stipulate that JARED HARRIS was employed by the City and County of San 

Francisco and acting within the course and scope of his employment as a San Francisco 

Police Officer when he arrested MICHAEL GARNER. 

2. The Parties will file a stipulation and proposed order by Thursday, July 14, 2016 to the effect 

that Defendant City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”) has entirely forgiven any and all 

amounts that may have been due or owing by Plaintiff in connection with his treatment at San 

Francisco General Hospital on November 27, 2013 or December 12, 2013, and that neither CCSF 

nor any other entity on its behalf will seek to recover any such amount from Plaintiff. 

3. The Parties will file an additional stipulation regarding the fact that Plaintiff was not 

Case 3:14-cv-05172-EDL Document 92 Filed 07/11/16 Page 2 of 7
3 

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 Californi

a

ultimately charged with a crime based on the November 27, 2013 incident by Thursday, July 14, 

2016. 

III.WITNESSES 

1. The testimony of Plaintiff’s non-retained expert witnesses is limited to opinions based on 

their own observations (i.e., formed in the course of their treatment of Plaintiff). 

2. The testimony of Plaintiff’s lay SFPD witnesses is limited to opinions based on their own 

observations (e.g., their personal involvement in Plaintiff’s arrest). 

3. Defendants’ lay SFPD witnesses may not testify regarding Plaintiff’s misdemeanors, nor 

regarding felonies that are more than ten years old. They may only testify regarding the topics 

discussed in Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 3 if Plaintiff “opens the door” (see further analysis of 

this motion below). The admissibility of their testimony regarding Plaintiff’s recent felonies 

depends on the Court’s decision based on the Parties’ Federal Rule 609 submissions. 

IV. EXHIBITS, DISCOVERY DESIGNATIONS, AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL 

NOTICE 

1. Defendants’ objection to Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 9 is OVERRULED. 

2. Defendants’ objection to Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 10 is OVERRULED. 

3. In light of the Court’s order that the Parties stipulate to the fact that Plaintiff was not 

ultimately charged with a crime based on the November 27, 2013 incident (see Part II above), the 

Parties will meet and confer to attempt to resolve their dispute regarding Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 

11. 

4. Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 13 are GRANTED. 

5. Defendants’ objection that Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 14 is generally inadmissible hearsay is 

OVERRULED. However, the Parties will meet and confer to redact portions of Exhibit No. 14 

that are overly prejudicial and/or inadmissible hearsay within hearsay, as discussed during the 

Pretrial Conference. 

6. Defendants shall not, through exhibits or discovery designations, introduce evidence of 

Plaintiff’s prior convictions for misdemeanors, nor for felonies more than ten years old, and 

Defendants’ request that the Court take judicial notice of any such convictions is DENIED. 

Case 3:14-cv-05172-EDL Document 92 Filed 07/11/16 Page 3 of 7
4 

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 Californi

a

Regarding Plaintiff’s more recent felony convictions—on May 24, 2013 (described in Exhibit 

Nos. 768 and 769) and July 14, 2014 (described in Exhibit Nos. 770 and 771), the Parties shall 

each submit no more than two pages regarding their admissibility pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 609 by Thursday, July 14, 2016. 

7. Defendants request for judicial notice that the date of Thanksgiving 2013 was Thursday, 

November 28, 2013 is GRANTED. 

8. If Plaintiff wishes to introduce as exhibits additional photographs of the scene of the 

incident, he will meet and confer with Defendants and thereafter submit these additional exhibits 

to the Court in accordance with the procedure described in the Court’s initial pretrial order by 

Thursday, July 14, 2016. 

V. MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 1 To Exclude Evidence Regarding Medicare, Medical, “WriteOffs,” or other Collateral Sources for Plaintiff’s Health Care is DENIED. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 2 To Exclude Evidence Regarding Plaintiff’s Illicit Drug Use is 

provisionally GRANTED. However, if Plaintiff “opens the door” by testifying that he has not or 

does not use illicit drugs, the Court may allow such evidence subject to the Parties first raising the 

issue with the Court. 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 3 To Exclude Evidence Regarding Subsequent Contacts 

Between Plaintiff and SFPD is provisionally GRANTED. However, if Plaintiff “opens the door” 

by testifying regarding his mental state during subsequent contacts with police, the Court may 

allow such evidence subject to the Parties first raising the issue with the Court. 

4. Defendants’ Motion in Limine 1 To Exclude Evidence of Economic Damages is 

GRANTED. 

5. Defendants’ Motion in Limine 2 To Exclude References to Police Misconduct Unrelated to 

Allegations and Events Giving Rise to Present Lawsuit is GRANTED as to evidence introduced 

at trial but DENIED as to questions to be asked during voir dire (although the only permissible 

questions during voir dire will be open-ended questions regarding police misconduct, and will not 

reference specific investigations). 

Case 3:14-cv-05172-EDL Document 92 Filed 07/11/16 Page 4 of 7
5 

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 Californi

a

6. Defendants’ Motion in Limine 3 To Exclude Evidence Relating to Matters Already Decided 

by Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 

7. Defendants’ Motion in Limine 4 To Exclude Medical Opinion and Medical Causation 

Testimony is GRANTED as to Plaintiff, whose testimony is limited to opinions rationally based 

on his perception that are not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. 

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s SFGH witnesses, whose testimony is limited 

to opinions formed in the course of their treatment of Plaintiff. Defendants’ motion is 

RESERVED as to statements by Plaintiff’s physicians to Plaintiff, which constitute hearsay 

unless some hearsay exception applies, and which the Court will evaluate as necessary during the 

course of trial. 

8. Defendants’ Motion in Limine 5 To Exclude Hearsay Statements from DA Personnel and 

Reference to Plaintiff’s Charges Being Dropped is GRANTED as to statements from DA 

Personnel to Plaintiff. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to reference to Plaintiff’s charges being 

dropped, which will be addressed by the stipulation described in Part II above. 

9. Defendants’ Motion in Limine 6 To Exclude Emotional Distress Damages other than 

“Garden Variety” Emotional Distress is GRANTED. 

10. Defendants’ Motion in Limine 7 To Exclude Evidence that Plaintiff’s Counsel Previously 

Served as Assistant District Attorney is GRANTED. 

VI. JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

1. The Court adopts the Parties’ jointly proposed jury instructions with a few limited 

exceptions discussed during the pretrial conference and below: 

 a. The Court has reviewed the caselaw regarding the overlap between Section 1983, Bane 

Act, battery, and negligence claims, and has found them to be entirely coextensive. See Cameron 

v. Craig, 713 F.3d 1012, 1022 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he elements of the excessive force claim under 

§ 52.1 are the same as under § 1983”); Morales v. City of Delano, 852 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1277-78 

(E.D. Cal. 2012) (“Negligence is measured by the same standard as battery and excessive use of 

force under the Fourteenth Amendment”). Accordingly, the Parties will revise Instruction 1.2 

(Claims and Defenses) to delete reference to battery. They will add the missing phrase “he 

Case 3:14-cv-05172-EDL Document 92 Filed 07/11/16 Page 5 of 7
6 

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 Californi

a

asserts.” 

 b. The Parties will delete Instruction 2.16 (Evidence in Electronic Format). 

 c. The Parties will revise Instruction 5.1 (Damages—Proof) to conform with the Court’s 

ruling on Defendants’ Motion in Limine 1. 

 d. The Parties will revise Instruction 9.3 (Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant in 

Individual Capacity—Elements and Burden of Proof) to clarify that the Parties have stipulated that 

Officer Harris acted under color of state law. 

 e. The Parties will revise Instruction 430 (Causation: Substantial Factor), so the final 

paragraph states that the instruction applies to all “claims and defenses,” rather than “claims and 

defense.” 

2. Regarding the instructions requested by both Parties but with competing language: 

 a. The Court adopts Defendants’ version of Instruction 9.23 (Particular Rights—Fourth 

Amendment—Unreasonable Seizure of Person—Excessive Force), without Plaintiff’s proposed 

additional factor. 

 b. The Court adopts Plaintiff’s versions of Instruction 1305 (Battery by Peace Officer), 

Instruction 400 (Negligence—Essential Factual Elements), and Instruction 401 (Basic Standard of 

Care), which more closely resemble the California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”). 

3. The Court does not adopt Defendants’ proposed jury instructions. 

4. The Court does not adopt Plaintiff’s proposed jury instructions. 

5. The Parties shall meet and confer regarding an instruction on “Questions to Witnesses by 

Jurors,” proposed by the Court and provided to the Parties at the hearing, and shall decide amongst 

themselves whether to give this instruction to the jury. 

6. The Parties shall confirm that all instructions are formatted correctly (including Instruction 

5.5, which is missing a line break), and that all titles are appropriate for this case (including the 

title to Instruction 3924, which should be revised to clarify that no punitive damages are available 

against CCSF). 

6. The Parties shall file a revised, complete set of jury instructions, divided into pre-instructions 

and final instructions, no later than Thursday, July 14, 2016. 

Case 3:14-cv-05172-EDL Document 92 Filed 07/11/16 Page 6 of 7
7 

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 Californi

a

VII.VERDICT FORM 

1. The Court will issue a subsequent order regarding the Parties’ joint proposed verdict form, 

and the Parties shall thereafter submit a revised verdict form in accordance with the Court’s order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 11, 2016 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-05172-EDL Document 92 Filed 07/11/16 Page 7 of 7