Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02539/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02539-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

16cv2539-GPC(AGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRINA KOISTRA; GEORGIA 

KOISTRA; and LARRY FORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES 1 

through 50, inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv2539-GPC(AGS)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE 

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT OPINION AS 

MOOT 

[Dkt. No. 53.]

In connection with their motion for summary judgment, Defendants filed a motion 

to exclude Plaintiff’s police practices and procedures expert, Scott DeFoe, concerning the 

use of the Sheriff’s canine pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 508 U.S. 579 

(1993). (Dkt. No. 53.) Defendants acknowledged they filed the Daubert motion in 

anticipation that Plaintiff will attempt to use her expert opinion in opposition to the 

motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 53-1.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the 

Daubert motion. (Dkt. No. 59.) In reply, Defendants concede that because Plaintiff did 

not submit Mr. DeFoe’s expert opinion testimony in opposition to the summary judgment 

motion, their Daubert motion is moot for purposes of the summary judgment motion. 

Case 3:16-cv-02539-GPC-AGS Document 62 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16cv2539-GPC(AGS)

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

(Dkt. No. 61.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to exclude as 

MOOT subject to refiling at the time of motions in limine. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 11, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02539-GPC-AGS Document 62 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2