Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991-25/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

REYNALDA MOLINA, individually; 

JACQUELINE MENDEZ-MADUENA, 

individually; G.M., a minor; J.M., a minor; 

and N.A.C., a minor, and each of them, by 

and through their guardian ad litem 

VERONICA AYON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VISALIA, a municipal 

corporation; ADAM COLLINS; DANIEL 

ROBERTS; DIRK ALFANO, individually, 

and in their official capacity; and DOES 4 

through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER 

(Doc. No. 106)

 

On June 20, 2014, plaintiffs Reynalda Molina and Jacqueline Mendez-Madueña with 

minors G.M. and N.A.C. through guardian ad litem Veronica Ayon filed the currently operative 

second amended complaint (“SAC”) against the City of Visalia, Officer Adam Collins, Officer 

Daniel Roberts, Officer Dirk Alfano, and DOES four through one hundred. (Doc. No. 40.) The 

action stems from a high speed chase and encounter with police during which shots were fired 

that resulted in deaths of Ruben Molina and Edwardo Madueño. The SAC alleges causes of 

action for: (1) unreasonable search and seizure and use of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 46
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

1983; (2) substantive due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) wrongful death under California 

Government Code §§ 815.2(a), 820(a) and California Civil Code § 43; (4) negligence survival 

action; (5) negligence under California Government Code § 815.2(a); and (6) assault and battery 

under California Government Code § 815.2(a). (Id.) 

On June 20, 2016, the court conducted a final pretrial conference. Peter Bersin, Charles 

Charlton, and Kyle Tracy appeared telephonically as counsel for plaintiffs; and Leonard Herr

appeared as counsel for defendants. (Doc. No. 101.) On June 27, 2016, this court issued a 

pretrial order. (Doc. No. 105.) In said order, the court, inter alia, granted the parties fourteen 

days to file objections and granted each party seven days thereafter to respond to the other party’s 

objections. (Id.) On July 11, 2016, defendants filed objections seeking (1) to add Amanda 

Hughes as a witness and (2) to correct a clerical mistake in the pretrial order in changing the due 

date for replies to any objections to motions in limine from August 8, 2016 to August 15, 2016. 

(Doc. No. 106.) Defendants state that Amanda Hughes was identified as a witness in defendants’ 

initial disclosures and her statement was provided to plaintiffs in early discovery, but that 

defendants inadvertently left her name off the list of witnesses in the pretrial statement. (Id. at 

1-2.) Plaintiffs did not file any objections of their own to the pretrial order or a response to 

defendants’ objections. After a review of the record herein and good cause appearing, the court 

finds it appropriate to amend the pretrial order to add Amanda Hughes as a witness and to correct 

the due date for replies to any objections to motions in limine to August 15, 2016. The court 

therefore makes the following findings and orders:

I. JURISDICTION/VENUE 

Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. Jurisdiction is not 

contested. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue is not contested. 

II. JURY 

Both parties have demanded a jury trial for all issues. The jury will consist of nine jurors. 

III. UNDISPUTED FACTS 

1. Reynaldo Molina is the mother of decedent Ruben Molina. 

2. Ruben Molina was 22 years old at the time of his death. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 46
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

3. Jacqueline Mendez-Madueña is the wife of decedent Edwardo Madueña. 

4. G.M., and J.M., are the minor children of decedent Edwardo Madueña. 

5. Edwardo Madueña was 19 years old at the time of his death. 

6. Daniel Roberts fired his weapon 13 times on October 26, 2012. 

7. Adam Collins fired his weapon 13 times on October 26, 2012. 

8. Dirk Alfano fired his weapon seven times on October 26, 2012 

9. Edwardo Madueña was driving a white Hyundai Sonata at the time of the police 

pursuit on October 26, 2012. 

10. Adam Collins was the driver of Visalia Police Department unit # 069 during the police 

pursuit on October 26, 2012. 

11. Dirk Alfano was Adam Collins’ partner and was in the right front seat in vehicle 069. 

12. Daniel Roberts was the driver of Visalia Police Department unit # 079 during the 

police pursuit on October 26, 2012. 

13. Amanda Hughes was a civilian ride-along and was in the right front seat in Visalia 

Police Department unit # 079. 

14. Daniel Roberts did not discuss a plan of action with Adam Collins or Dirk Alfano 

during the pursuit or before approaching on foot the overturned Hyundai Sonata on 

October 26, 2012. 

15. Dirk Alfano did not discuss a plan of action with Daniel Roberts or Adam Collins 

during the pursuit or before approaching on foot the overturned Hyundai Sonata on 

October 26, 2012. 

16. Adam Collins did not discuss a plan of action with Daniel Roberts or Dirk Alfano 

during the pursuit or before approaching on foot the overturned Hyundai Sonata on 

October 26, 2012. 

17. It is not known which of the three officers fired his weapon before the other officers 

started to fire their weapons. 

18. Each time Adam Collins fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, it was a use of force 

likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 46
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

19. Each time Dirk Alfano fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, it was a use of force 

likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. 

20. Each time Daniel Roberts fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, it was a use of force 

likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. 

21. Edwardo Madueña did not have a high school diploma from an accredited institution. 

IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES 

1. Whether Edwardo Madueña while fleeing on foot after exiting the crashed and 

overturned vehicle, made a quarter turn toward Adam Collins and had his hands at his 

waist. 

2. Whether the Hyundai Sonata failed to stop behind a limit line for a stop sign which 

alleged failure was the reason for pulling over the vehicle on October 26, 2012 by 

Visalia Police Department Officers Adam Collins and Dirk Alfano. 

3. Whether the real reason for pulling over the Hyundai Sonata was something other 

than as stated by Officers Adam Collins and Dirk Alfano. 

4. Whether there were more than 5 occupants in the Hyundai Sonata on October 26, 

2012 at the time it crashed and overturned. 

5. Whether any occupant other than Edwardo Madueña, had anything to do with its 

failure to stop on October 26, 2012 after being directed to do so by Visalia Police 

Department Officers Adam Collins and Dirk Alfano.

6. Whether Robert Ruiz heard any shots which he believed were coming from inside the 

Hyundai Sonata on October 26, 2012 after it crashed and overturned. 

7. Whether any person in the Hyundai Sonata at the time it rolled over was the owner or 

possessor of a Colt .45 series 70 handgun containing a magazine with five (5) live 

rounds. 

8. Whether any person in the Hyundai Sonata at the time it rolled over was the owner or 

possessor of a CZ 97 9mm Rugar pistol containing a magazine with thirteen (13) live 

rounds. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 4 of 46
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

5

9. Whether any person in the Hyundai Sonata at the time it rolled over was the owner or 

possessor of a magazine containing seventeen (17) live rounds of .308 rifle 

ammunition. 

10. What Officer Collins said, if anything, to any of the passengers of the Hyundai before 

he started firing his weapon. 

11. What Officer Alfano said, if anything, to any of the passengers of the Hyundai before 

he started firing his weapon. 

12. What Officer Roberts said, if anything, to any of the passengers of the Hyundai 

before he started firing his weapon. 

13. Whether Officers Collins, Alfano, or Roberts had any reason to believe the 

passengers of the Hyundai presented a threat to the lives or safety of the officers or 

others at the time Officers Collins, Alfano and Roberts began firing their weapons. 

14. The location of Adam Collins after exiting his patrol vehicle, each time he fired his 

weapon at any of the passengers who he shot. 

15. The location of Dirk Alfano after exiting his patrol vehicle, each time he fired his 

weapon at any of the passengers who he shot. 

16. The location of Daniel Roberts after exiting his patrol vehicle, each time he fired his 

weapon at any of the passengers who he shot. 

17. Whether Officer Collins, Officer Alfano or Officer Roberts heard gunfire coming 

from or near the Hyundai prior to the time they began firing their weapons. 

18. N.A.C. is the minor child of decedent Edwardo Madueña. 

19. Defendant Daniel Roberts shot and killed Ruben Molina on October 26, 2012. 

20. Defendant Adam Collins shot and killed Edwardo Madueña on October 26, 2012. 

21. Edwardo Madueña was shot once in the back of his head. 

22. Defendant Dirk Alfano shot and wounded Nicholas Chavez on October 26, 2012. 

23. Nicholas Chavez was shot in the leg and in the abdomen. 

24. Ruben Molina was not armed at the time Daniel Roberts shot at him. 

25. Edwardo Madueña was not armed at the time Adam Collins shot at him. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 5 of 46
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

6

26. Nicholas Chavez was not armed at the time Dirk Alfano shot at him. 

27. Ruben Molina was the right front passenger in Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle which 

was involved in the police pursuit on October 26, 2012. 

28. Nicholas Chavez was the left rear passenger in Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle which 

was involved in the police pursuit on October 26, 2012. 

29. Shanele Alvarado was the middle rear passenger in Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle 

which was involved in the police pursuit on October 26, 2012. 

30. Robert Ruiz was the right rear passenger in Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle which was 

involved in the police pursuit on October 26, 2012. 

31. The only occupants in Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle were Edwardo Madueña, Rubin 

Molina, Nicholas Chavez, Shanele Alvarado and Robert Ruiz on October 26, 2012 at 

the time it crashed, rolled over and ended up upside down. 

32. Before the attempted stop of Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle by Visalia Police 

Department Officers Adam Collins and Dirk Alfano on October 26, 2012, everyone 

in the vehicle had been to Jack in the Box for food. 

33. At the time Adam Collins and Dirk Alfano attempted to pull over Edwardo 

Madueña’s vehicle, Edwardo Madueña was driving the four passengers to their 

homes or to a location near where they lived. 

34. The reason given by Adam Collins and Dirk Alfano for attempting to pull over 

Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle was an alleged violation of the Vehicle Code section 

22450, failing to stop behind a marked limit line at a stop sign. 

35. On October 26, 2012, at the time Adam Collins and Dirk Alfano attempted to pull 

over Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle, they had no knowledge of the identity of the driver 

or the passengers in Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle. 

36. October 26, 2012 at the time Adam Collins and Dirk Alfano attempted to pull over 

Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle they had no knowledge of whether the driver or the 

passengers in Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle had any criminal record. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 6 of 46
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

7

37. Adam Collins, Dirk Alfano and Daniel Roberts engaged in a high risk pursuit of 

Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle on the evening of October 26, 2012. 

38. During the high risk pursuit Adam Collins and Dirk Alfano reached speeds of up to 

100 mph. 

39. During the high risk pursuit Daniel Roberts reached speeds of up to 100 mph. 

40. At the time Adam Collins, Dirk Alfano and Daniel Roberts engaged in the high risk 

pursuit, they had no knowledge of the identity of the driver or the passengers in 

Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle. 

41. At the time Adam Collins, Dirk Alfano and Daniel Roberts engaged in the high risk 

pursuit, they had no knowledge of whether the driver or the passengers in Edwardo 

Madueña’s vehicle had any criminal record. 

42. At the time Adam Collins, Dirk Alfano and Daniel Roberts engaged in the high risk 

pursuit, they had no knowledge whether the driver or the passengers in Edwardo 

Madueña’s vehicle were armed with a weapon. 

43. Adam Collins did not call off or terminate the high risk pursuit on October 26, 2012. 

44. Dirk Alfano did not call off or terminate the high risk pursuit on October 26, 2012. 

45. Daniel Roberts did not call off or terminate the high risk pursuit on October 26, 2012. 

46. The watch commander, Brian Winter, did not call off or terminate the high risk 

pursuit on October 26, 2012. 

47. At the time Adam Collins, Dirk Alfano and Daniel Roberts fired their weapons on 

October 26, 2012, they had no knowledge of the identity of the driver or the 

passengers in Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle. 

48. At the time Adam Collins, Dirk Alfano and Daniel Roberts fired their weapons on 

October 26, 2012, they had no knowledge of whether the driver or the passengers in 

Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle had any criminal record. 

49. At the time Adam Collins fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no 

knowledge whether Edwardo Madueña was armed. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 7 of 46
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

8

50. At the time Dirk Alfano fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no knowledge 

whether Edwardo Madueña was armed. 

51. At the time Daniel Roberts fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no 

knowledge whether Edwardo Madueña was armed. 

52. At the time Adam Collins fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no 

knowledge whether Ruben Molina was armed. 

53. At the time Dirk Alfano fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no knowledge 

whether Ruben Molina was armed. 

54. At the time Daniel Roberts fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no 

knowledge whether Ruben Molina was armed. 

55. At the time Adam Collins fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no 

knowledge whether Nicolas Chavez was armed. 

56. At the time Dirk Alfano fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no knowledge 

whether Nicholas Chavez was armed. 

57. At the time Daniel Roberts fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no 

knowledge whether Nicholas Chavez was armed. 

58. At the time Adam Collins fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no 

knowledge weather Shanele Alvarado was armed. 

59. At the time Dirk Alfaro fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no knowledge 

whether Shanele Alvarado was armed. 

60. At the time Daniel Roberts fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no 

knowledge whether Shanele Alvarado was armed. 

61. At the time Adam Collins fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no 

knowledge whether Robert Ruiz was armed. 

62. At the time Dirk Alfano fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no knowledge 

whether Robert Ruiz was armed. 

63. At the time Daniel Roberts fired his weapon on October 26, 2012, he had no 

knowledge whether Robert Ruiz was armed. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 8 of 46
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

9

64. Ruben Molina was not in possession of a weapon at the time Adam Collins, Daniel 

Roberts & Dirk Alfano fired their weapons on October 26, 2012. 

65. Edwardo Madueña was not in possession of a weapon at the time Adam Collins, 

Daniel Roberts & Dirk Alfano fired their weapons on October 26, 2012. 

66. Nicholas Chavez was not in possession of a weapon at the time Adam Collins, Daniel 

Roberts & Dirk Alfano fired their weapons on October 26, 2012. 

67. Shanele Alvarado was not in possession of a weapon at the time Adam Collins, 

Daniel Roberts & Dirk Alfano fired their weapons on October 26, 2012. 

68. Robert Ruiz was not in possession of a weapon at the time Adam Collins, Daniel 

Roberts & Dirk Alfano fired their weapons on October 26, 2012. 

69. Ruben Molina did not fire any weapon at the police before he was shot on October 

26, 2012. 

70. Edwardo Madueña did not fire any weapon at the police before he was shot on 

October 26, 2012. 

71. Nicholas Chavez did not fire any weapon at the police before he was shot on October 

26, 2012. 

72. Shanele Alvarado did not fire any weapon at the police on October 26, 2012. 

73. Robert Ruiz did not fire any weapon at the police on October 26, 2012. 

74. Ruben Molina was shot in the head, left shoulder, left upper arm, left upper back, left 

upper lip and left cheek. 

75. The Tulare County Sheriff Department Officers were charged with the responsibility 

of searching the scene where the shooting took place on October 26, 2012 for shell 

casings. 

76. The Tulare County Sheriffs searched for shell casings at the scene where the shooting 

took place by visually looking for shell casings and using a metal detector. 

77. There were no shell casings found inside Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle by the Tulare 

County Sheriffs involved in the search. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 9 of 46
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

10

78. The only shell casings found at the scene where the shooting took place on October 

26, 2012 were from the 40 caliber Sig Sauer semi-automatic handguns shot by Adam 

Collins, Daniel Roberts and Dirk Alfano. 

79. The Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office Forensic Science Laboratories Division 

tested gunshot residue samples taken by Tulare County Sheriff’s Department Officer 

Swanson from Ruben Molina’s hands for gunshot residue and the analysis revealed 

no gunshot residue particles were found on samples taken of his right and left hands. 

80. The Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office Forensic Science Laboratories Division 

tested gunshot residue samples taken by Tulare County Sheriff’s Department Officer 

Swanson from Edwardo Madueña’s hands for gunshot residue and the analysis 

revealed no gunshot residue particles were found on samples taken of his right and 

left hands. 

81. The Tulare County Sheriff’s office collected gunshot residue kits from Nicholas 

Chavez, Robert Ruiz & Shanele Alvarado, but the kits were never tested. 

82. Adam Collins did not use his vehicle’s spotlight to either illuminate the interior of 

Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle or to prevent the occupants from observing the officer’s 

approach on foot on October 26, 2012. 

83. Dirk Alfano did not use his vehicle’s spotlight to either illuminate the interior of 

Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle or to prevent the occupants from observing the officer’s 

approach on foot October 26, 2012. 

84. Daniel Roberts did not use his vehicle’s spotlight to either illuminate the interior of 

Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle or to prevent the occupants from observing the officer’s 

approach on foot October 26, 2012. 

85. Adam Collins did not use available cover before the first shot was fired at the scene 

of the overturned Hyundai Sonata on October 26, 2012. 

86. Daniel Roberts did not use available cover before the first shot was fired at the scene 

of the overturned Hyundai Sonata on October 26, 2012. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 10 of 46
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

11

87. Adam Collins did not maintain a position of advantage before the first shot was fired 

at the scene of the overturned Hyundai Sonata on October 26, 2012. 

88. Daniel Roberts did not maintain a position of advantage before the first shot was fired 

at the scene of the overturned Hyundai Sonata on October 26, 2012. 

89. On October 26, 2012, Adam Collins did not wait for back up Visalia Police Officers 

to arrive at the scene before approaching without cover, the overturned Hyundai 

Sonata on foot. 

90. On October 26, 2012, Daniel Roberts did not wait for back up Visalia Police Officers 

to arrive at the scene before approaching without cover, the overturned Hyundai 

Sonata on foot. 

91. On October 26, 2012, Dirk Alfano did not wait for back up Visalia Police Officers to 

arrive at the scene before firing his weapon at Nicholas Chavez. 

92. Adam Collins did not issue any commands to the driver or the passengers of Edwardo 

Madueña’s vehicle before firing his weapon on October 26, 2012. 

93. Dirk Alfano did not issue any commands to the driver or the passengers of Edwardo 

Madueña’s vehicle before firing his weapon on October 26, 2012. 

94. The only verbal warning Daniel Roberts issued was “hands” or I’ll release my dog” 

before firing his weapon on October 26, 2012. 

95. Adam Collins did not direct the driver or the occupants not to move until instructed to 

on October 26, 2012. 

96. Daniel Roberts did not direct the driver or the occupants not to move until instructed 

to on October 26, 2012. 

97. Dirk Alfano did not direct the driver or the occupants not to move until instructed to 

on October 26, 2012. 

98. Adam Collins did not direct the driver or the occupants to keep their hands in sight on 

October 26, 2012. 

99. Dirk Alfano did not direct the driver or the occupants to keep their hands in sight on 

October 26, 2012. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 11 of 46
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

12

100. Adam Collins did not order the driver or the occupants to exit the vehicle one at a 

time on October 26, 2012. 

101. Daniel Roberts did not order the driver or the occupants to exit the vehicle one at a 

time on October 26, 2012. 

102. Dirk Alfano did not order the driver or the occupants to exit the vehicle one at a time 

on October 26, 2012. 

103. Adam Collins did not order the driver or the occupants to exit the vehicle slowly on 

October 26, 2012. 

104. Daniel Roberts did not order the driver or the occupants to exit the vehicle slowly on 

October 26, 2012. 

105. Dirk Alfano did not order the driver or the occupants to exit the vehicle slowly on 

October 26, 2012. 

106. Before any weapons were fired, Adam Collins exposed himself to needless danger 

by approaching the overturned Hyundai Sonata by foot. 

107. Before any weapons were fired, Daniel Roberts exposed himself to needless danger 

by approaching the overturned Hyundai Sonata by foot. 

108. When Adam Collins fired his weapon in the direction of Edwardo Madueña’s 

vehicle after it had rolled over, that presented an imminent threat of death or serious 

bodily injury to the driver and passengers of the Hyundai Sonata. 

109. When Dirk Alfano fired his weapon in the direction of Edwardo Madueña’s vehicle 

after it had rolled over, that presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily 

injury to the driver and passengers of the Hyundai Sonata. 

110. When Daniel Roberts fired his weapon in the direction of Edwardo Madueña’s 

vehicle after it had rolled over, that presented an imminent threat of death or serious 

bodily injury to the driver and passengers of the Hyundai Sonata. 

111. After the Hyundai Sonata crashed and overturned, the passengers were not able to 

see through the front window of the car before exiting. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 12 of 46
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

13

112. After Robert Ruiz crawled out of the overturned Hyundai Sonata, he never did 

anything of a threatening nature so as to cause Adam Collins to believe it was 

necessary to use deadly force against Edwardo Madueña. 

113. After Robert Ruiz crawled out of the overturned Hyundai Sonata, he never did 

anything of a threatening nature so as to cause Daniel Roberts to believe it was 

necessary to use deadly force against Edwardo Madueña. 

114. After Robert Ruiz crawled out of the overturned Hyundai Sonata, he never did 

anything of a threatening nature so as to cause Dirk Alfano to believe it was 

necessary to use deadly force against Edwardo Madueña. 

115. After Nicholas Chavez crawled out of the overturned Hyundai Sonata, he did 

nothing of a threatening nature so as to cause Adam Collins to believe it was 

necessary to use deadly force against Edwardo Madueña. 

116. After Nicholas Chavez crawled out of the overturned Hyundai Sonata, he did 

nothing of a threatening nature so as to cause Daniel Roberts to believe it was 

necessary to use deadly force against Ruben Molina. 

117. Gunshot residue analysis revealed many characteristic particles of gunshot residue in 

the interior passenger-side, rear door of the Hyundai driven by Edwardo Madueña. 

118. Gunshot residue analysis revealed many characteristic particles of gunshot residue in 

the interior passenger-side, rear door of the Hyundai driven by Edwardo Madueña. 

119. A Colt .45 series 70 handgun was found underneath Ruben Molina’s body. 

120. A CZ 97 9 mm Rugar pistol was containing a magazine with thirteen (13) live 

rounds was found several feet away from the Hyundai Sonata near Edwardo 

Madueña’s body. 

121. A magazine containing (17) live rounds of .308 rifle ammunition was found inside 

the Hyundai Sonata. 

122. Edwardo Madueña was an active Norteno gang member on October 26, 2012. 

123. Ruben Molina was an active Norteno gang member on October 26, 2012. 

124. Robert Ruiz was an active Norteno gang member on October 26, 2012. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 13 of 46
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

14

125. Ruben Molina was a convicted felon on October 26, 2012. 

126. Robert Ruiz was a convicted felon on October 26, 2012. 

127. Robert Ruiz had been convicted illegally selling firearms prior to October 26, 2012. 

128. Expert testimony from Greg Stutchman establishes the sound of 2 gunshots before 

any Defendant police officer fired his weapon. 

129. All of the shots fired by the police officers were from 40 caliber Sig Sauer Model 

P226 - semi automatic handguns. 

130. Peace Officers Standards and Training referred to as “POST” is the standard for law 

enforcement training in the State of California. 

131. The Visalia Police Department requires its officers to successfully complete POST 

training. 

V. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 

A. Plaintiffs’ Disputed Evidentiary Issues 

1. Plaintiffs anticipate objecting to any attempt by the defense to introduce any evidence 

of gang affiliation of Ruben Molina, Edwardo Madueña, Nicholas Chavez, Robert 

Ruiz or Shanele Alvarado. Objections will be based Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal 

Rules of Evidence. 

2. Plaintiffs anticipate objecting to the introduction of any evidence that Ruben Molina, 

Edwardo Madueña, or Nicholas Chavez had body tattoos on or before the October 26, 

2012 incident date. Objections will be based Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal Rules 

of Evidence. 

3. Plaintiffs anticipate objecting to any evidence that Ruben Molina, Edwardo Madueña, 

Nicholas Chavez or Robert Ruiz had a criminal record prior to the incident date of 

October 26, 2012. Objections will be based Rules 401, 403 and 404(b)(1) of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence.

4. Plaintiffs anticipate objecting to any evidence that magazines with bullets were found 

inside the Hyundai Sonata after the shooting incident was over. Objections will be 

based Rules 401, 403 and 404(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 14 of 46
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

15

5. Plaintiffs anticipate objecting to the introduction of any evidence that two handguns 

were found at the scene after the shooting stopped based upon the lack of evidence 

that these guns were fired on the date of the incident. Objections will be based on 

Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

6. Plaintiffs anticipate objecting to any attempt by the defense to introduce any written 

findings of the District Attorney’s office for the City of Visalia with respect to the 

propriety of the VPD officers Adam Collins, Dirk Alfano or Daniel Roberts shooting 

in this case. Objections will be based on Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence. 

7. Plaintiffs anticipate objecting to any attempt by the defense to introduce any other 

findings by the Visalia Police Department or the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department, 

with respect to the propriety of the shootings by VPD Officers Adam Collins, Daniel 

Roberts or Dirk Alfano. Objections will be based on Rules 401 and 403 of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence.

8. Plaintiffs anticipate objecting to any evidence that Edwardo Madueña and Ruben 

Molina had traces of marijuana in their system referenced in their autopsy reports. 

Objections will be based on Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

Expert Opinions of Joe Callanan: 

9. Plaintiffs believe that the majority of opinions set forth in his FRCP Rule 26 Report 

are not admissible. 

The following Summary of Expert Opinions numbered in Mr. Callanan’s report 

beginning at page 31 will be objected to either in whole, or in part: 20.01, 20.02, 

30.03, 20.05, 20.07, 20.08, 20.11, 20.12, 20.13, 20.14, 20.15, 20.16, 20.17, 20.18, 

20.19, 20.20, 20.21, 20.22, 20.24, 20.25, 20.26, 20.27, 20.28, 20.29 and 20.30. 

Objections to these opinions will be based on the following grounds to wit: 

A. Opinions are rendered on an ultimate issue. Federal Rules of Evidence 704. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 15 of 46
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

16

B. Opinions are conclusions of fact which the jury should decide and are not 

based on specialized knowledge that will assist the jury in understanding the 

case. Federal Rules of Evidence 702. 

C. Opinions contain statements of law which the jury will be instructed on. 

Federal Rules of Evidence 403. 

 Plaintiffs intend to address their objections to the previously referenced opinions in 

motions in limine. 

Expert Opinion of Gregg Stutchman: 

10. Mr. Stutchman’s Rule 26 Report states that he intends to render an expert opinion that 

two (2) sounds he hears on the dash cam audio tape from officer Daniel Roberts patrol 

care are gunshots. Further, he intends to testify that these two gunshots are not from 

guns fired by either Adam Collins, Daniel Roberts or Dirk Alfano. The implication is 

that these two gunshots had to come from some passengers in the overturned Hyundai 

Sonata. 

 Plaintiffs intend to bring a motion in limine to preclude his testimony based on a 

Daubert challenge. According to plaintiffs there appears to be no scientific evidence 

to support the conclusions Mr. Stutchman’s reaches that the first two sounds are 

gunshots. Moreover, according to plaintiffs, there is no scientific evidence supporting 

Stutchman’s opinion rendered as a “critical listening” expert, trained to listen for 

gunshot sounds. A motion in limine will be brought by plaintiffs seeking to preclude 

from admission into evidence of Stutchman’s opinion that the first two sounds heard 

are gunshots, and secondly, that the alleged gunshots could not have been fired by any 

police officers involved in the shooting in this case. The objections will also be based 

on Rule 702(a) through (d) of Federal Rules of Evidence. 

Expert Opinion of Kris Mohandie, Ph.D.: 

11. Mr. Mohandie is a licensed psychologist who specialized in police officer involved 

shooting cases. In his Rule 26 Report he states he will render the following opinion: 

It is expected, normal, and reasonable that the responding officers, under the totality of 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 16 of 46
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

17

circumstances and the highly stressful nature of this particular event, perceived danger 

and an immediate threat from the suspects. Indeed the totality of the circumstances 

the officers were subjected to, were more than sufficient to induce a profound 

psychophysiological fear response. The normal and expected reaction would be for 

the officers to respond as they did, with behaviors designed to reduce the perceived 

threat. 

 Plaintiffs object to this opinion on the grounds that it is an opinion on an ultimate 

issue and should be precluded on the basis of Rules 704 and 702 of the Federal Rules 

of Evidence. Plaintiffs intend to address this objection through a motion in limine. 

Expert Opinion of George Williams: 

12. Mr. Williams is an expert in police shooting cases. His Rule 26 Report renders 

opinions that are duplicative of opinions rendered by defense expert, Joe Callanan. 

Plaintiffs will object to any and all such duplicative expert opinions. 

At page 6 of Mr. Williams’ report, paragraphs 3 through page 7, line 24, he sets 

forth the opinions he intends to offer at trial. 

 Plaintiffs intend to object to portions of each opinion set forth in the 

aforementioned section of Mr. Williams’ report pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Evidence, Rules 702(a) and 704. 

B. Defendants’ disputed factual issues 

1. Defendants will object to the introduction of evidence regarding the car chase that 

preceded the deaths of Messrs. Molina and Madueña. Plaintiffs expressly deny that 

their suit is based on the chase, but insist that the chase is relevant because it leads to 

liability. This will be the subject of objection by defense motion in limine under 

Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 401, 403, & 405. 

Evidence re: Nicholas Chavez 

2. Defendants will object to the introduction of evidence that Nicholas Chavez was shot, 

that he sued the City, or that his case settled as immaterial. Defendants will object by 

motion in limine under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 405.

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 17 of 46
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

18

Expert Opinions Not Timely Served: 

3. One of plaintiffs’ experts, Tamorah Hunt, served a Rule 26 report two months after it 

was due. Defendants will object by motion in limine to expert opinions from expert 

reports not timely served under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 & 37. 

Expert Opinion of Roger Clark: 

4. Defendants will object to Roger Clark testifying to matters not stated in his expert 

opinion. Defendants will object by motion in limine under Federal Rules of Evidence

401, 403, 701-703; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 & 37. 

Cumulative, inflammatory photographic evidence 

5. Defendants will object by motion in limine to plaintiffs’ proposed presentation to 

jurors of photographs of the decedents after they were shot. 

VI. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION IN ACTIONS FOR WRONGFUL DEATH 

Pursuant to Local Rule 281(b)(6)(iv), the following special factual information pertains to 

this action: 

On October 26, 2012, a police shooting took place in the City of Visalia after a vehicle 

pursuit ended with the pursued vehicle crashing and rolling over. Edwardo Madueña exited the 

overturned vehicle and was shot by VPD Officer Adam Collins in the back of the head as he was 

running away. He died in transit to the hospital. 

 Rubin Molina was attempting to crawl out of the overturned vehicle when he was shot and 

killed by VPD Officer Daniel Roberts. 

 Nicholas Chavez was shot in the leg and abdomen as he crawled out of the overturned 

vehicle by VPD Officer Dirk Alfano. He survived the shooting and his case was settled. 

 Plaintiff Reynalda Molina is the mother of Ruben Molina. She is suing for the loss of her 

son’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, attention, society and moral support. In 

addition, she is suing for funeral and burial expenses. 

 Edwardo Madueña was 19 on the date of his death. His dependents are: 

 Jacqueline Mendez-Madueña, wife, age 22. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 18 of 46
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

19

 N.A.C., minor daughter, age 5. Defendants contend N.A.C.’s paternity is 

not relevant; her capacity as his heir is the subject of dispute. 

 G.M., minor daughter, age 5. 

 J.M., minor son, age 3. 

 GM, JM, and N.A.C., are the children of decedent, Edwardo Madueña. 

 Jacqueline Mendez-Madueña, is the wife of decedent, Edwardo Madueña. 

 Reynalda Molina, age 52, is the mother of decedent, Ruben Molina. 

 Decedent, Edwardo Madueña, was contributing $240.00 per month to his children and 

wife at the time of his death. 

 Edwardo Madueña was 19 years old at the time of his death. He was in good health. He 

was not a high school graduate. His only training was as an agriculture worker. 

 Ruben Molina was 21 years old at the time of his death. He was in good health. He was a 

high school graduate. His only training was as an agriculture worker. 

VII. RELIEF SOUGHT 

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages. Jacqueline MendezMadueña, GM, JM and NAC seek economic damages for loss of support and household services; 

and non-economic damages for loss of Edwardo Madueña’s love, companionship, comfort, care, 

assistance, society and moral support as well as for burial and funeral expenses. 

Reynalda Molina seeks non-economic damages for loss of Ruben Molina’s love, 

companionship, comfort, care, assistance, society and moral support as well as economic 

damages for burial and funeral expenses. 

VIII. RELEVANT UNCONTESTED POINTS OF LAW 

Liability under federal law is premised on a violation of 42 USC § 1983, use of 

unreasonable force deprived decedents of their right to be secure in their persons. 

 Liability under pendent state law is premised on wrongful death and negligence. See

California Civil Code § 1714 (a), the general duty to exercise due care; Code of Civil Procedure § 

377.60(a), who may bring a wrongful death action; and for City’s liability under Government 

Code § 815.2.

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 19 of 46
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

20

 Damages under federal law for attorney fees is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

 Compensatory damages are based on Code of Civil Procedure § 377.61. 

 Punitive damages are based on a violation of California Civil Code § 3294. 

IX. RELEVANT CONTESTED POINTS OF LAW 

The court summarizes the parties’ positions on contested points of law below. Trial briefs 

addressing these points more completely shall be filed with this court no later than 14 days prior 

to the date of trial in accordance with Local Rule 285. 

Issue No. 1: Whether the chase that preceded the deaths of Messrs. Madueña and Molina 

are relevant to liability. 

Defendants’ argument: 

Plaintiffs expressly disavowed the car chase as a basis for liability when opposing 

summary judgment, but now claim it is a basis for liability. Defendants contend these facts are 

immaterial and unhelpful to the trier of fact. Plaintiffs have expressly denied that the chase is a 

basis for liability, but now insist that the facts of the chase are relevant to a determination of 

liability. Plaintiffs’ counsel made an unequivocal representation to this court: the chase has never 

been the basis for liability in this case. Now, they say it is not a basis for liability, it is just 

important to determining whether City is liable. Plaintiff’s contradiction is, at best, fallacy; at 

worst, opportunistic gamesmanship. 

Plaintiffs are attempting an end run around the rule in Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 

843-844 (1998), which unequivocally says that a car chase without more is not a constitutional 

violation. Plaintiffs seized the opportunity to try and embarrass the City by claiming they have 

never based liability on the car chase: now, it is a key fact in establishing City’s liability. 

Plaintiffs should be held good to their own word: the car chase is immaterial to whether these 

officers violated the rights of the decedents by firing their weapons after the chase was finished. 

Plaintiff’s response: 

The Visalia Police Department has a written Vehicle Pursuit Policy Section 314.1 titled 

“Purpose and Scope” which provides as follows, to wit: 

“Vehicle pursuits expose innocent citizens, law enforcement 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 20 of 46
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

21

officers and fleeing violators to the risk of serious injury or death. 

The primary purpose of this policy is to provide officers with 

guidance in balancing the safety of the public and themselves 

against law enforcement’s duty to apprehend violators of the law. 

Another purpose of this policy is to reduce the potential for pursuitrelated collisions. Vehicular pursuits require officers to exhibit a 

high degree of common sense and sound judgment. Officers must 

not forget that the immediate apprehension of a suspect is generally 

not more important than the safety of the public and pursuing 

officers 

Deciding whether to pursue a motor vehicle is a critical decision 

that must be made quickly and under difficult and unpredictable 

circumstances. In recognizing the potential risk to public safety 

created by vehicular pursuits, no officer or supervisor shall be 

criticized or disciplined for deciding not to engage in a vehicular 

pursuit because of the risk involved. This includes circumstances 

where department policy would permit the initiation or continuation 

of the pursuit. It is recognized that vehicular pursuits are not 

always predictable and decisions made pursuant to this policy will 

be evaluated according to the totality of the circumstances 

reasonably available at the time of the pursuit. 

Officers must remember that the most important factors to the 

successful conclusion of a pursuit are proper self-discipline and 

sound professional judgment. Officer’s conduct during the course 

of a pursuit must be objectively reasonable; that is, what a 

reasonable officer would do under the circumstances. An 

unreasonable individual’s desire to apprehend a fleeting suspect at 

all costs has no place in professional law enforcement.” 

Other relevant sections include the following: 

314.7.5 CAPTURE OF SUSPECTS 

“Proper self-discipline and sound professional judgment are the 

keys to a successful conclusion of a pursuit and apprehension of 

evading suspects. Officers shall use only that amount of force, 

which reasonable appears necessary under the circumstances, to 

properly perform their lawful duties. 

Unless relieved by a supervisor, the primary officer shall coordinate 

efforts to apprehend the suspects following the pursuit. Officers 

should consider safety of the public and the involved officers when 

formulating plans to contain and capture the suspects.” 

314.8.1 REGULAR AND PERIODIC PURSUIT 

TRAINING 

“In addition to initial and supplementary Police Officer Standard 

Training (POST) training on pursuits required by Penal Code § 

13519.8, all sworn members of this department will participate no 

less than annually in regular and periodic department training 

addressing this policy and the importance of vehicle safety and 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 21 of 46
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

22

protecting the public at all times, including a recognition of the 

need to balance the known offense and the need for immediate 

capture against the risks to officers and others (Vehicle Code 

§ 17004.7(d)). 

 Plaintiffs contend that numerous violations of the VPD Pursuit Policy took place all of 

which, directly let to the unreasonable use of deadly force by defendant officers Adam Collins, 

Dirk Alfano, and Daniel Roberts. 

X. ABANDONED ISSUES 

The fifth and sixth causes of action are abandoned [by settlement with the plaintiff to 

them, Nicholas Chavez]. 

XI. WITNESSES 

Plaintiffs’ witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A. Defendants’ witnesses shall be 

those listed in Attachment B. Each party may call any witnesses designated by the other. 

A. The court will not permit any other witness to testify unless: 

(1) The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the 

purpose of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at 

the pretrial conference, or 

(2) The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering 

party makes the showing required in paragraph B, below. 

B. Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial, 

the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of 

the unlisted witnesses so the court may consider whether the witnesses shall be 

permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses will not be permitted unless: 

(1) The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the 

discovery cutoff; 

(2) The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of 

the witness; 

(3) If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and 

(4) If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 22 of 46
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

23

was provided to opposing parties. 

XII. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES, AND SUMMARIES 

Joint exhibits are listed in Attachment C. At trial, joint exhibits shall be identified as JX 

and listed numerically, e.g., JX-1, JX-2. Plaintiffs’ exhibits are listed in Attachment D. At trial, 

plaintiffs’ exhibits shall be listed numerically. Defendants’ exhibits are listed in Attachment E. 

At trial, defendant’s exhibits shall be listed alphabetically. All exhibits must be pre-marked. 

The parties must prepare exhibit binders for use by the court at trial, with a side tab 

identifying each exhibit in accordance with the specifications above. Each binder shall have an 

identification label on the front and spine. 

The parties must exchange exhibits no later than 28 days before trial. Any objections to 

exhibits are due no later than 14 days before trial. In making any objection, the party is to set 

forth the grounds for the objection. As to each exhibit which is not objected to, it shall be marked 

and received into evidence and will require no further foundation. 

A. The court will not admit exhibits other than those identified on the exhibit lists 

referenced above unless: 

(1) The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the 

purpose of rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably 

anticipated, or 

(2) The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the 

proffering party makes the showing required in paragraph B, below. 

B. Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall promptly 

inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the 

court may consider their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received 

unless the proffering party demonstrates: 

(1) The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier; 

(2) The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their 

existence; 

(3) The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 23 of 46
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

24

possible) to the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the 

proffering party must show that it has made the exhibits reasonably 

available for inspection by the opposing parties. 

XIII. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS 

Counsel must lodge the sealed original copy of any deposition transcript to be used at trial 

with the Clerk of the Court no later than 14 days before trial. 

Plaintiffs/defendants may use the discovery documents listed in Attachment F at trial. 

XIV. FURTHER DISCOVERY 

The parties report that they have agreed that the deposition of Gregg Stutchman may be 

completed on or before the end of June 2016. The court takes no position with respect to the 

parties’ agreement in this regard. 

XV. MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

The parties have not yet filed motions in limine. The court does not encourage the filing 

of motions in limine unless they are addressed to issues that can realistically be resolved by the 

court prior to trial and without reference to the other evidence which will be introduced by the 

parties at trial. Any motions in limine counsel elects to file shall be filed on or before July 25, 

2016. Opposition shall be filed on or before August 8, 2016 and any replies shall be filed on or 

before August 15, 2016. The court will hear argument on the motions in limine on September 

6, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in courtroom five (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. 

XVI. STIPULATIONS 

None. 

XVII. AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS 

Plaintiffs’ fifth and sixth causes of action of the Second Amended Complaint should be 

dismissed. 

XVIII. SETTLEMENT 

The parties previously unsuccessfully participated in a mediation with Hon, Oliver 

Wanger, Judge (Ret.). A mandatory settlement conference is set on October 3, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. 

in courtroom ten (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 24 of 46
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

25

XIX. AGREED STATEMENTS 

The parties do not believe an agreed statement is feasible. 

XX. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES 

A separate trial on punitive damages is feasible. 

XXI. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS 

Plaintiffs believe there should be a limitation of experts and the defense should decide 

between George Williams and Joe Callanan who to use with respect to opinions common to both. 

Defendants ask that this court limit plaintiff’s experts to opinions expressed in those 

reports that were timely served only, and that Mr. Clark be specifically limited to the opinions 

stated in his report dated February 17, 2016. 

XXII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

Plaintiffs will be seeking an award of attorneys’ fees if they prevail on their 42 U.S.C. 

1983 claim by way of a post-trial motion. 

Defendants seek a defense verdict, and costs of suit and attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1988, should they prevail in this action. 

XXIII. ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE 

Jury trial is set for November 1, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. in courtroom five (DAD) before the 

Honorable Dale A. Drozd. Trial is anticipated to last no more than three weeks (15 court days). 

The parties are directed to Judge Drozd’s standard procedures available on his webpage on the 

court’s website. 

Counsel are to call Renee Gaumnitz, courtroom deputy, at (559) 499-5652, one week prior 

to trial to ascertain the status of the trial date. 

XXIV. PROPOSED JURY VOIR DIRE AND PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

At the pretrial conference, the court and counsel discussed the possibility of using a juror 

questionnaire to pre-screen prospective jurors. If they wish to pursue this possibility the parties 

are directed to submit a proposed jury questionnaire or questionnaires as soon as possible, but in 

no event later than August 30, 2016, nine weeks prior to the scheduled trial date. 

The parties shall file any proposed jury voir dire 14 days before trial. Counsel will be 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 25 of 46
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

26

permitted to conduct supplemental jury voir dire, the length of which will be determined by the 

court after it is determined whether a jury questionnaire will be employed. 

The court directs counsel to meet and confer in an attempt to generate a joint set of jury 

instructions and verdicts. The parties shall file any such joint set of instructions 14 days before 

trial, identified as “Joint Jury Instructions and Verdicts.” To the extent the parties are unable to 

agree on all or some instructions and verdicts, their respective proposed instructions are due 14 

days before trial.

Counsel shall e-mail a copy of all proposed jury instructions and verdicts, whether agreed 

or disputed, as a Word document to dadorders@caed.uscourts.gov no later than 14 days before 

trial; all blanks in form instructions should be completed and all brackets removed. 

Objections to proposed jury instructions must be filed 7 days before trial; each objection 

shall identify the challenged instruction and shall provide a concise explanation of the basis for 

the objection along with citation of authority. When applicable, the objecting party shall submit 

an alternative proposed instruction on the issue or identify which of his or her own proposed 

instructions covers the subject. 

XXV. TRIAL BRIEFS 

As noted above, trial briefs are due 14 days before trial. 

XXVI. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER 

Each party is granted 14 days from the date of this order to file objections to the same. 

Each party is also granted 7 days thereafter to respond to the other party’s objections. If no 

objections are filed, the order will become final without further order of this court. 

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Local Rule 283 of this court, this order shall control the subsequent course of this 

action and shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 26 of 46
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

27

Attachment A

1. Reynalda Molina, 773 E. Bent Ranch Avenue, Earlimart, CA 93219. 

2. Socoro Ramirez, 773 E. Bent Ranch Avenue, Earlimart, CA 93219. 

3. Nicholas Chavez, 1510 14th Avenue, Delano, CA. 

4. Robert Ruiz, 148 North Santa Clara, Tulare, CA. 

5. Shanele Alvarado, 200 West Caldwell Avenue, Apt. 29, Visalia, CA. 

6. Jacqueline Mendez-Madueña, 867 State Street, Earlimart, CA 93219. 

7. G.M., a minor, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem VERONICA AYON, 414 Via 

de Moreno, Delano, CA 93215. 

8. J. M., a minor, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem VERONICA AYON, 414 Via 

de Moreno, Delano, CA 93215. 

9. N.A.C., a minor, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem VERONICA AYON, 414 

Via de Moreno, Delano, CA 93215. 

10. Adam Collins, Visalia Police Department (“VPD”). 

11. Dirk Alfano, Visalia Police Department (“VPD”). 

12. Daniel Roberts, Visalia Police Department (“VPD”). 

13. Merced Zamora - Tulare County Sheriff’s Department (“TCSO”) 

14. Rodney Klassen - TCSO. 

15. Gary Walter. M.D., Microcorre Diagnostic Laboratory, 890 Cherry Street, Tulare, CA 

93274. 

16. Detective Whaley, VPD. 

17. Detective B. Saldana - TCSO. 

18. Nancy D. McCombs, Sr. Criminalist, California Department of Justice Bureau of 

Forensic Services, 5311 N. Woodrow Avenue, Fresno, CA 93740, (559) 294-4000.

19. Brian Winter, VPD. 

20. Jason DeWitt, VPD. 

21. C. Swanson, TCSO. 

22. Thomas Wright, Deputy Coroner, 1225 S. “O” Street, Tulare, CA 93274. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 27 of 46
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

28

23. Jose Torres, TCSO. 

24. Detective William Meeks, TCSO. 

25. M. Webb, TCSO. 

26. Debra K. Kowal, Sr. Criminalist, Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office, 1104 N. 

Mission Road, Los Angeles, CA 90033. 

27. Deputy Ricardo Cerda - VPD.

28. Jesus Madueña, 2336 Corte Sanchez, Delano, CA 93215. 

29. Deputy Ricardo Cerda – TCSO 

30. Capt. Perry Phipps, VPD 

31. Capt. Rick Haskill, VPD 

32. Lt. Steve Puder, VPD

33. Lt. Steve Phillips, VPD 

34. Sgt. Russ Gauger, VPD 

35. Sgt. Amy Watkins, VPD 

36. Agt. Lance Brooks, VPD 

37. Marisela Cisneros1

 

1

 Although not listed in plaintiff’s list of witnesses in the pretrial statement, the parties stipulated 

to the inclusion of witness Marisela Cisneros, who has previously been deposed in this action, at 

the pretrial conference. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 28 of 46
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

29

Attachment B

1. Reynalda Molina, 773 E. Bent Ranch Avenue, Earlimart, CA 93219.

2. Socoro Ramirez, 773 E. Bent Ranch Avenue, Earlimart, CA 93219. 

3. Nicholas Chavez, 1510 14th Avenue, Delano, CA. 

4. Robert Ruiz, 148 North Santa Clara, Tulare, CA. 

5. Shanele Alvarado, 200 West Caldwell Avenue, Apt. 29, Visalia, CA. 

6. Jacqueline Mendez-Madueña, 867 State Street, Earlimart, CA 93219. 

7. G.M., a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem VERONICA AYON, 414 Via 

de Moreno, Delano, CA 93215. 

8. J. M., a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem VERONICA AYON, 414 Via 

de Moreno, Delano, CA 93215. 

9. N.A.C., a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem VERONICA AYON, 414 

Via de Moreno, Delano, CA 93215. 

10. Officer Adam Collins, Visalia Police Department (VPD) 

11. Officer Dirk Alfano, VPD 

12. Officer Daniel Roberts, VPD 

13. Merced Zamora - Tulare County Sheriff’s Department (“TCSO”) 

14. Rodney Klassen – TCSO 

15. Gary Walter. M.D., Microcorre Diagnostic Laboratory, 890 Cherry Street, Tulare, CA 

93274. 

16. Detective Whaley, VPD. 

17. Detective B. Saldana, TCSO. 

18. Nancy D. McCombs, Sr. Criminalist, California Department of Justice Bureau of 

Forensic Services, 5311 N. Woodrow Avenue, Fresno, CA 93740, (559) 294-4000.

19. Officer Brian Winter, VPD 

20. Officer Jason DeWitt, VPD 

21. C. Swanson, TCSO. 

22. Thomas Wright, Deputy Coroner, 1225 S. “O” Street, Tulare, CA 93274. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 29 of 46
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

30

23. Jose Torres, TCSO. 

24. Detective William Meeks, TCSO 

25. M. Webb, TCSO. 

26. Debra K. Kowal, Sr. Criminalist, Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office, 1104 N. 

Mission Road, Los Angeles, CA 90033 

27. Deputy Ricardo Cerda – TCSO 

28. Capt. Perry Phipps, VPD 

29. Capt. Rick Haskill, VPD 

30. Lt. Steve Puder, VPD 

31. Lt. Steve Phillips, VPD 

32. Sgt. Russ Gauger, VPD 

33. Sgt. Amy Watkins, VPD 

34. Agt. Lance Brooks, VPD 

35. Amanda Hughes2

 

2 Although not listed in defendant’s list of witnesses in the pretrial statement, the court has added 

her to defendants’ witness list after defendants’ timely and unopposed objection to the pretrial 

order seeking to add her as a witness. (See Doc. No. 106.) 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 30 of 46
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

31

Attachment C 

None submitted.

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 31 of 46
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

32

Attachment D

1. Death Certificate of Ruben Molina. 

2. Birth Certificate of Ruben Molina. 

3. High School Diploma of Ruben Molina. 

4. High School Football Championship plaque - Ruben Molina.

5. Student I.D. Card from Allan Hancock College - Ruben Molina. 

6. Graduation photographs of Ruben Molina. 

7. Childhood photographs of Ruben Molina. 

8. Miscellaneous family photographs. 

9. Autopsy report - Ruben Molina. 

10. College Journal entry - Ruben Molina. 

11. Burial expense documents - Ruben Molina. 

12. The following photographs and drawings produced by the defense in discovery in CD 

format: 

a. Photograph numbers – 12, 13, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 26, 67, 68, 74, 

77, 82, 98, 103, 105, 119, 121, 123, 124, 126, 145, 148, 151, 152, 154, 157, 178, 

180, 316, 505, 546. 

b. Police Officer Drawings numbers - 197, 199, 201, 203, 205, 207 

c. Hyundai Sonata Photos numbers - 566, 569, 582, 584, 586, 600, 604. 

13. Deposition Exhibits 1 through 23 from Adam Collins, Daniel Roberts and Dirk 

Alfano’s deposition transcripts. 

14. Deposition Exhibit 2 from Jason DeWitt’s deposition transcript. 

15. Deposition Exhibits 3 and 4 from Brian Winter’s deposition transcript. 

16. Deposition Exhibits 1 through 6 from Russell Gauger’s deposition transcript. 

17. Deposition Exhibits 6 and 9 from Shanele Alvarado’s deposition transcript. 

18. Deposition Exhibit 3, 5, 9, 10 & 11 from Robert Ruiz’s deposition transcripts. 

19. Deposition Exhibit 5 from Nicholas Chavez’s deposition transcript. 

/////

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 32 of 46
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

33

20. The Gunshot Residue test results done by Debra Gibson on Edwardo Madueña, Ruben 

Molina and the Hyundai Sonata; Exhibits 1 through 3 of her deposition transcript. 

21. The Physical Evidence Report done by Nancy D. McCombs; Exhibits 1 and 2 to her 

deposition transcript. 

22. VPD Policy #300, Section 300.1, 300.1.1, 300.2, 300.3, 300.3.2 and 300.4. 

23. VPD Policy on Vehicle Pursuits, Sections 214.1, 314.11, 314.2.1, 314.2.2, 314.3.3, 

314.4, 314.4.1, 314.7.5 and 314.8.1 

24. VPD Police Service Dog Program, Sections 318.2 and 318.2.1. 

25. Allied Agency Vehicle Pursuit Report; defense bate number COV02683. 

26. VPD Video Cam footage from Daniel Robert’s Canine Unit Vehicle. 

27. VPD Video Cam footage from Adam Collin’s Gang Suppression Unit Vehicle. 

28. TCSO interviews of Adam Collins, Daniel Roberts and Dirk Alfano produced in 

discovery by the defense, both audio and transcripts. 

29. Deposition transcript of Robert Ruiz. 

30. Deposition transcript of Shanele Alvarado 

31. Deposition transcript of Daniel Roberts 

32. Deposition transcript of Dirk Alfano 

33. Deposition transcript of Adam Collins 

34. Deposition transcript of Veronica Ayon 

35. Visalia Police Department Radio Traffic 

36. Visalia Police Department cell phone records 

37. Jack in the Box video 

38. Hand written jail letters from Ruben Molina to his mother, Reynalda Molina 

39. Tulare County Sheriff Reports, Batestamp COV 00647-00842

40. Tulare County Sheriff Reports, Batestamp COV 00574-00636

41. Tulare County Sheriff’s Reports Batestamp COV 00269-00448 

42. Deposition transcript of the Debra K. Gibson 

43. Deposition transcript of Nancy D. McCombs 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 33 of 46
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

34

44. Deposition Transcript of Araceli Cisneros/Solano 

45. All exhibits to the deposition of Araceli Cisneros/Solano 

46. Deposition transcript of Lt. Brian Winter 

47. Deposition transcript of Sgt. Russel Gauger 

48. Deposition transcript of Officer Jason DeWitt 

49. Deposition transcript of Rodney Klassen 

50. All exhibits to the deposition of Rodney Klassen 

51. Deposition transcript of Jose Torres 

52. The following photographs: 2908934, 2908928, 2908865, 2908874, 2908892, 

2908898, 2908907, 2908910, 2909153, 2909204, 2909219, 2909363, 2909369, 

2909375, 2913335, 2913341, 2913350, 2913362, 2913374, 2913878, 2931415, 

2931418, 2931550, 2931568 

53. Certificate of Live Birth of N.A.C. 

54. Certificate of Live Birth of J.M. 

55. Certificate of Live Birth of G.M. 

56. Marriage Certificate of Edwardo Madueña and Jacqueline Mendez-Madueña. 

57. Certificate of Death of Edwardo Madueña. 

58. Autopsy report – Edwardo Madueña. 

59. Various Photographs of Edwardo Madueña, Edwardo Madueña’s grave site, 

Jacqueline Mendez-Madueña, G.M., J.M. and N.A.C. 

60. Relationship Report. 

61. Check Stubs (JA Contracting Labor Management) – Edwardo Madueña. 

62. Check Stubs (Alvaro Mercado Peregrina) – Edwardo Madueña. 

63. Check Stubs (Santa Rios Farm Labor) – Edwardo Madueña. 

64. W-2 (Copy C/2) Income Tax Form Date: 2011 Employer: Benito Martinez (Edwardo 

Madueña). 

65. W-2 (Copy C) Income Tax Form Date: 2011 Employer: Santana Rios Farm Labor 

(Edwardo Madueña). 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 34 of 46
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

35

66. W-2 (Copy C/2) Income Tax Form Date: 2011 Employer: Torres Produce (Edwardo 

Madueña). 

67. Edwardo Madueña’s Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. 

68. Statement of Funeral Goods and Services Selected/Purchase Agreement – Edwardo 

Madueña. 

69. Charter of the City of Visalia – Edwardo Madueña. 

70. Belford High School Diploma – Edwardo Madueña. 

71. Certificate of Distinction in Calculus 1 – Edwardo Madueña. 

72. Award of Excellence from Belford High School – Edwardo Madueña. 

73. Certificate of Membership in Student Council – Edwardo Madueña. 

74. Belford High School Transcript – Edwardo Madueña. 

75. Certificate of Edwardo Madueña’s aware of a High School Diploma with a 3.19 Grade 

Point Average. 

76. Deposition transcript of Tamorah Gail Hunt, Ph.D. and Exhibits (Excluding Exhibit 

32). 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 35 of 46
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

36

Attachment E

1. Visalia Police Department Investigative Report Nos. 12-15653 – H12-15653 

2. Tulare County Sheriff’s Department Investigative Report Nos. 12-00014072-000 

through 12-00014072-030 

3. Department of Justice Physical Evidence Examination Report 

4. Tulare County Sheriff audio interview with Nicholas Chavez 

5. Transcript of audio interview with Nicholas Chavez 

6. Tulare County Sheriff audio interviews with Robert Ruiz 

7. Transcripts of Tulare County Sheriff audio interviews with Robert Ruiz 

8. Deposition transcript of Robert Ruiz. 

9. Tulare County Sheriff audio interview with Shanele Alvarado 

10. Transcript of Tulare County Sheriff audio interview with Shanele Alvarado 

11. Deposition transcript of Shanele Alvarado 

12. Tulare County Sheriff audio interview with Officer Daniel Roberts 

13. Transcript of Tulare County Sheriff audio interview with Officer Daniel Roberts 

14. Deposition transcript of Daniel Roberts 

15. Tulare County Sheriffs audio interview with Officer Dirk Alfano 

16. Transcript of Tulare County Sheriff audio interview with Dirk Alfano 

17. Deposition transcript of Dirk Alfano 

18. Tulare County Sheriffs audio interview with Officer Adam Collins 

19. Transcript of Tulare County Sheriff audio interview with Officer Adam Collins 

20. Deposition transcript of Adam Collins 

21. Audio graphs from expert Greg Stutchman. 

22. Enhanced audio of sound from video dash cams by Greg Stutchman. 

23. Audio recording of interview with Veronica Ayon 

24. Transcript of interview with Veronica Ayon 

25. Deposition transcript of Veronica Ayon 

26. Visalia Police Department Radio Traffic 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 36 of 46
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

37

27. Visalia Police Department cell phone records 

28. Jack in the Box video 

29. Dash Cam video from Officer Daniel Roberts’ patrol vehicle 

30. Dash Cam video from Officer Adam Collins’ patrol vehicle 

31. Hand written jail letters from Ruben Molina to his mother, Reynalda Molina 

32. All exhibits to the deposition of Robert Ruiz 

33. All exhibits to the deposition of Nicholas Chavez 

34. Gang opinion regarding Nicholas Chavez, Batestamp COV 00637-00647 

35. Gang opinion regarding Robert Ruiz, Batestamp COV 00637-00647 

36. Tulare County Sheriff Reports, Batestamp COV 00647-00842

37. Tulare County Sheriff Reports, Batestamp COV 00574-00636

38. Tulare County Sheriff’s Reports Batestamp COV 00269-00448 

39. Tulare County Sheriff’s Reports Batestamp COV 00449-00573 

40. Search Warrant and Affidavit; Statement of Probable Cause 

41. Forensic Science Laboratories Analytical Report by Debra K. Kowal 

42. Deposition transcript of the Debra K. Gibson 

43. All exhibits to the deposition of Debra K. Gibson 

44. Physical Evidence Examination Report by Nancy D. McCombs 

45. Deposition transcript of Nancy D. McCombs 

46. All exhibits to the deposition of Nancy D. McCombs 

47. Deposition Transcript of Araceli Cisneros/Solano 

48. All exhibits to the deposition of Araceli Cisneros/Solano 

49. Deposition transcript of Lt. Brian Winter 

50. All exhibits to the deposition of Lt. Brian Winter 

51. Deposition transcript of Sgt. Russel Gauger 

52. All exhibits to the deposition of Sgt. Russel Gauger 

53. Deposition transcript of Officer Jason DeWitt 

54. All exhibits to the deposition of Officer Jason DeWitt 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 37 of 46
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

38

55. Deposition transcript of Rodney Klassen 

56. All exhibits to the deposition of Rodney Klassen 

57. Deposition transcript of Jose Torres 

58. All exhibits to the deposition of Jose Torres 

59. Deposition transcript of Lt. Ed Lynn 

60. All exhibits to the deposition of Lt. Ed Lynn 

61. Deposition transcript of Mark Coleman 

62. All exhibits to the deposition of Mark Coleman 

62. VPD Policy #300, Section 300.1, 300.1.1, 300.2, 300.3, 300.3.2 and 300.4. 

63. VPD Policy on Vehicle Pursuits, Sections 214.1, 314.11, 314.2.1, 314.2.2, 314.3.3, 

314.4, 314.4.1, 314.7.5 and 314.8.1 

64. VPD Police Service Dog Program, Sections 318.2 and 318.2.1. 

65. Allied Agency Vehicle Pursuit Report; defense bate number COV02683. 

66. The following photographs: 2908934, 2908928, 2908865, 2908874, 2908892, 

2908898, 2908907, 2908910, 2909153, 2909204, 2909219, 2909363, 2909369, 

2909375, 2913335, 2913341, 2913350, 2913362, 2913374, 2913878, 2931415, 

2931418, 2931550, 2931568 

67. Tulare County District Attorney letter to Tulare County Sheriff’s Department 

68. Findings and Conclusions of Deadly Force Review Board 

69. Memo to Officer Dirk Alfano re Findings of Deadly Force Review Board 

70. Memo to Officer Daniel Roberts re Findings of Deadly Force Review Board 

71. Memo to Officer Adam Collins re Findings of Deadly Force Review Board 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 38 of 46
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

39

Attachment F 

Plaintiffs’ Discovery Documents: 

36. Defendant City of Visalia’s Responses to Plaintiff, J.M.’s First Set of Special 

 Interrogatories 

 Special Interrogatory No. 1 and Response thereto as it pertains to Request for 

Admission 4. 

 Special Interrogatory No. 1 and Response thereto as it pertains to Request for 

Admission 5. 

 Special Interrogatory No. 2 and Response thereto No. 2. 

37. Defendant City of Visalia’s Responses to Plaintiff J.M.’s First Set of Request for 

 Admissions 

 Request for Admission No. 2 and Response Thereto. 

 Request for Admission No. 3 and Response Thereto. 

 Request for Admission No. 4 and Response Thereto. 

 Request for Admission No. 5 and Response Thereto. 

 Request for Admission No. 6 and Response Thereto. 

 Request for Admission No. 7 and Response Thereto. 

 Request for Admission No. 10 and Response Thereto. 

 Request for Admission No. 11 and Response Thereto. 

 Request for Admission No. 12 and Response Thereto. 

 Request for Admission No. 13 and Response Thereto. 

 Request for Admission No. 14 and Response Thereto. 

38. Defendant City of Visalia’s Responses to Plaintiff J.M.’s First Set of Request for 

 Production 

 Request for Production No. 1 and Response Thereto. 

39. Defendant City of Visalia’s Response to Plaintiff J.M.’s Second Set of Special 

 Interrogatories 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 39 of 46
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

40

 Special Interrogatory No. 5 and Response thereto as it pertains to Request for 

Admission 17. 

 Special Interrogatory No. 5 and Response thereto as it pertains to Request for 

Admission 18. 

 Special Interrogatory No. 5 and Response thereto as it pertains to Request for 

Admission 20. 

 Special Interrogatory No. 5 and Response thereto as it pertains to Request for 

Admission 25. 

 Special Interrogatory No. 5 and Response thereto as it pertains to Request for 

Admission 26. 

 Special Interrogatory No. 5 and Response thereto as it pertains to Request for 

Admission 27. 

 Special Interrogatory No. 5 and Response thereto as it pertains to Request for 

Admission 28. 

 Special Interrogatory No. 8 and Response thereto. 

Defendants’ Discovery Documents: 

 G.M. Responses to City’s Discovery 

1. G.M. Responses to Defendant COV’s First Set of Special Interrogatories. (Dated 

1/14/2015) 

2. G.M. Responses to Defendant COV’s First Set of Request for Admission. (Dated 

1/14/2015) 

3. G.M. Responses to Defendant COV’s First Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 1/14/2015) 

4. G.M. Supplemental Responses to Defendant COV’s First Set of Special 

Interrogatories. (Dated 8/6/2015) 

5. G.M. Supplemental Responses to Defendant COV’s First Set of Request for 

Production of Documents. (Dated 8/6/2015) 

/////

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 40 of 46
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

41

6. G.M. Responses to Defendant COV’s Second Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 11/2/2015) 

7. G.M. Responses to Defendant COV’s Second Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 11/10/2015) 

8. G.M. Responses to Defendant COV’s Second Set of Request for Admission. (Dated 

12/16/2015) 

9. G.M. Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Request for Admission Set One. (Dated 

2/11/2016) 

10. G.M. Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Interrogatories Set One. (Dated 

2/11/2016) 

11. G.M. Responses to Defendant COV’s Request for Admission Set three. 

(Dated2/11/2016) 

12. G.M. Further Amended Response to Defendant COV’s Requests for Admission Set 

Two. (Dated 2/25/2016) 

13. G.M. Further Response to Defendant COV’s Interrogatories Set One. (Dated 

2/26/2016) 

14. G.M. Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Request for Admission Set Two. (Dated 

3/4/2016) 

15. G.M. Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Interrogatories Set Two. (Dated 

3/4/2016) 

16. G.M. Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Request for Admission. 

(Dated 3/8/2016) 

17. G.M. Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories. 

(Dated 3/8/2016) 

18. G.M. Amended Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Special 

Interrogatories. (Dated 3/21/2016) 

/////

/////

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 41 of 46
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

42

 J.M.’s Responses to City’s Discovery 

1. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Special Interrogatories. (Dated 

1/14/2015) 

2. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Requests for Admission. (Dated 

1/14/2015) 

3. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 1/14/2015) 

4. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Special 

Interrogatories. (Dated 8/6/2015) 

5. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Request for 

Production of Documents. (Dated 8/6/2016) 

6. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 11/2/2015) 

7. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 11/10/2015) 

8. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Requests for Admission. 

(Dated 12/17/2015) 

9. Response to Requests for Admission Set One. (Dated 2/11/2016) 

10. Response to Interrogatories Set One. (Dated 2/11/2016) 

11. Response to Requests for Admission Set Three. (Dated 2/11/2016) 

12. Further Amended Response to Requests for Admission Set Two. (Dated 2/25/2016) 

13. Further Response to Interrogatories Set One. (Dated 2/26/2016) 

14. Response to Requests for Admission Set Two. (Dated 3/4/2016) 

15. Response to Interrogatories Set Two. (Dated 3/4/2016) 

16. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Request for 

Admission. (Dated 3/8/2016) 

17. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Special 

Interrogatories. (Dated 3/8/2016) 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 42 of 46
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

43

18. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Special 

Interrogatories. (Dated 3/23/2016) 

19. Plaintiff’s Amended Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Special 

Interrogatories. (Dated 4/19/2016) 

 N.A.C.’s Responses to City’s Discovery 

1. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Special Interrogatories. (Dated 

1/14/2015) 

2. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Requests for Admission. (Dated 

1/14/2015) 

3. Plaintiff’s Responses to COV First Set of Request for Production of Documents. 

(Dated 1/14/2015) 

4. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Special 

Interrogatories. (Dated 8/6/2015) 

5. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Request for 

Production of Documents. (Dated 8/6/2015) 

6. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 11/2/2015) 

7. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Special Interrogatories. (Dated 

11/16/2015) 

8. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 11/10/2015) 

9. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Request for 

Production of Documents. (Dated 12/10/2015) 

10. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Requests for Admission. 

(Dated 12/17/2015) 

11. Response to Requests for Admission Set One. (Dated 2/11/2016) 

12. Response to Interrogatories Set One. (Dated 2/11/2016) 

13. Response to Requests for Admission Set Three. (Dated 2/11/2016) 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 43 of 46
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

44

14. Further Amended Response to Request for Admission Set Two. (Dated 2/25/2016) 

15. Further Response to Interrogatories Set One. (Dated 2/26/2016) 

16. Response to Interrogatories Set Two. (Dated 3/4/2016) 

17. Response to Requests for Admission Set Two. (Dated 3/4/2016) 

18. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Requests for 

Admission. (Dated 3/8/2016) 

19. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Special 

Interrogatories. (Dated 3/8/2016) 

 Jacqueline Madueña’s Responses to COV’S Discovery 

1. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Special Interrogatories. (Dated 

1/14/2015) 

2. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Request for Admission. (Dated 

1/14/2015) 

3. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 1/14/2015) 

4. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Special 

Interrogatories. (Dated 8/6/2015) 

5. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant COV First Set of Request for 

Production of Documents. (Dated8/6/2015) 

6. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Requests for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 11/2/2015) 

7. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 11/10/2016) 

8. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Special Interrogatories. (Dated 

11/16/2015) 

9. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant COV Second Set of Requests for Admission. 

(Dated 12/17/2015) 

10. Response to Request for Admission Set One. (Dated 2/11/2016). 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 44 of 46
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

45

11. Response to Interrogatories Set One. (Dated2/11/2016) 

12. Response to Request for Admission Set Three. (Dated 2/11/2016) 

13. Further Amended Response to Requests for Admission Set Two. (Dated 2/25/2016) 

14. Further Response to Interrogatories Set One. (Dated 2/26/2016) 

15. Response to Requests for Admission Set Two. (Dated 3/4/2016) 

16. Response to Interrogatories Set Two. (Dated 3/4/2016) 

17. Plaintiff’s Amended Responses to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Special 

Interrogatories. (Dated 3/23/2016) 

 Reynalda Molina Discovery Responses 

1. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant COV First Set of Special Interrogatories. (Dated 

12/29/2014) 

2. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant COV First Set of Requests for Admission. 

(Dated12/29/2014) 

3. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant COV First Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 12/29/2016) 

4. Plaintiff’s Further Response to Defendant COV First Set of Requests for Admission. 

(Dated 1/6/2015) 

5. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant COV First Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 8/12/2015) 

6. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant COV Second Set of Request for Production of 

Documents. (Dated 9/22/2015) 

7. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant COV Second Set of Requests for Admission. (Dated 

12/8/2015) 

8. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant COV Second Set of Request for 

Production of Documents. (Dated 12/18/2015) 

9. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant COV Third Set of Requests for Admission. (Dated 

12/23/2015) 

/////

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 45 of 46
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

46

10. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s First Set of Requests for Admissions. 

Dated 2/10/2016) 

11. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s First Set of Special Interrogatories. 

(Dated 2/10/2016) 

12. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant COV Third Set of Requests for 

Admission. (Dated 2/10/2016) 

13. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Requests for 

Admission. (Dated 2/22/2016) 

14. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories. 

(Dated 2/22/2016) 

15. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant COV Fourth Set of Requests for Admission. (Dated 

2/29/2016) 

16. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Requests 

for Admissions. (Dated 3/21/2016) 

17. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant Dirk Alfano’s Second Set of Special 

Interrogatories. (Dated 3/21/2016) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 107 Filed 07/22/16 Page 46 of 46