Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-85-01457/USCOURTS-ca10-85-01457-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

FILED 

UniOOd Stawa Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 1 91988 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

\ 

0. GEORGE SPECHT, JR. and JUNE B. ) 

SPECHT, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ROGER JENSEN, DOUG MARTIN, and ) 

DON OWENS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellants, ) 

) 

PAT TELLIER and KEN JACOBS, ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

0. GEORGE SPECHT, JR.. and JUNE B. ) 

SPECHT, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ROGER JENSEN, PAT TELLIER, DOUG ) 

MARTIN, DON OWENS and KEN JACOBS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No.85-1457 

No. 85-1533 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 82-Z-809) 

Appellate Case: 85-1457 Document: 01019290801 Date Filed: 12/19/1988 Page: 1 
. . 

Theodore S. Halaby (Robert M. Liechty with him on the brief} of 

Halaby & McCrea, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants Jensen, Martin 

and Owens. 

Arthur H. Bosworth, II (Michael J. Peterson with him on the 

brief), of Bosworth & Slivka, Denver, Colorado for PlaintiffsAppellees. 

Before McKAY, SETH, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 85-1457 Document: 01019290801 Date Filed: 12/19/1988 Page: 2 
George and June Specht brought an action to recover damages 

under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 (1982), resulting from the alleged illegal 

search of their home and George Specht's office. A jury found in 

favor of the Spechts and defendants appealed. A panel of this 

court affirmed. Specht v. Jensen, 832 F.2d 1516 (lOth Cir. 1987) 

(Specht I). Without vacating the panel opinion, the Court granted 

limited rehearing en bancj Specht v. Jensen, 837 F.2d 940 (lOth 

Cir. 1988) (Specht II), and held that the trial court's admission 

of certain expert testimony constituted reversable error, Specht 

v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805 (lOth Cir. 1988) (Specht III). The 

Spechts had originally filed a cross-appeal, which the panel 

deemed abandoned in view of its decision to affirm. Specht I, 832 

F.2d at 1519 n.3. Upon the en bane court's conclusion that the 

jury verdict must be reversed, the cross-appeal was reinstated, 

Specht III, 853 at 810, and we address it now. 

The facts underlying the Spechts' claims are set out in 

detail in the panel opinion, see Specht I, 832 F.2d at 1518-20, 

and we will not repeat them here. In their cross-appeal, the 

Spechts raise several issues which the en bane grant of a new 

trial has made it unnecessary for us to consider. 1 However, the 

Spechts assert four issues that must be decided before a new 

1 The Spechts argue that the district court erred in refusing 

to grant their motion to reopen discovery. This issue has been 

rendered moot by the grant of a new trial. The Spechts also 

appeal the denial of prejudgment interest, an issue that will only 

arise if plaintiffs are successful on retrial . 

. -3-

Appellate Case: 85-1457 Document: 01019290801 Date Filed: 12/19/1988 Page: 3 
trial: they contend that the district cou~t erred by 1) refusing 

to admit a press release issued by Steamboat Springs ~fficials · 

after the alleged illegal searches had occurred; 2) ordering their 

expert to give defendants the raw results of psychological tests 

administered to June Specht; 3) directing a verdict for Defendant 

Steamboat Springs; and 4) striking their state claims based on the 

Colorado constitution. 

I. 

Defendants filed a motion in limine with respect to a press 

release issued by the City of Steamboat Springs, which the 

district court granted. The Spechts raised the issue again at 

trial and the court re~terated its ruling that the evidence was 

not admissible. On appeal, the Spechts contend that the lower 

court erred in characterizing the press release as inadmissible 

evidence of subsequent remedial measures. 

The admission of subsequent remedial measures is governed by 

Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides in 

pertinent part: "When, after an event, measures are taken which, 

if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to 

occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to 

prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the 

event." The press release here summarizes the results of the 

City•s investigation of the incidents giving rise to the lawsuit. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 85-1457 Document: 01019290801 Date Filed: 12/19/1988 Page: 4 
The release states that the officers involved exercised poor 

judgment in failing to read the writ of assistance thoroughly, and 

that appropriate disciplinary action would be taken. The release 

thus sets out remedial measures taken by the City to prevent the 

recurrence of the poor judgment the investigation revealed, and is 

therefore within the ambit of Rule 407. See Maddox v. City of Los 

Angeles, 792 F.2d 1408, 1417 (9th Cir. 1986) (disciplinary 

proceeding constituted inadmissible remedial measure); cf. Rocky 

Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Bell Helicopters, Inc., 805 F.2d 

907, 918-19 (lOth Cir. 1986) (even though investigative report 

itself admissible, remedial measures taken pursuant to such 

investigation prohibited by Rule 407). The district court did not 

abuse its discretion by excluding the press release. 

II. 

The Spechts contend that the district court abused its 

discretion by ordering June Specht's psychological expert to 

produce his raw data in violation of the American Psychological 

Association standards. We conclude there was no reversible error. 

It was the doctor, not the plaintiffs, who objected to producing 

the data at the deposition. Moreover, although June Specht 

asserts in conclusory language that she was prejudiced at trial as 

a result of the court's ruling, she does not describe the 

prejudice. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 85-1457 Document: 01019290801 Date Filed: 12/19/1988 Page: 5 
. . 

III. 

The district court granted a directed verdict for the City of 

Steamboat Springs, holding that "in order for inaction to provide 

a basis for a city's liability, the inaction must be deliberate 

indifference, tacit approval of an offensive act." Rec., vol. IX, 

at 873. The court held that the evidence, viewed most favorably 

to plaintiffs, did not tend to establish the City's culpability 

under the above standard. On appeal, the Spechts do not contest 

the standard relied on, but contend that this standard was met by 

a failure to supervise or train, or a pattern of deliberate 

indifference. We have carefully reviewed the record and we agree 

with the trial court that it contains no evidence tending to show 

deliberate indifference. 2 We -therefore affirm th~ directed 

verdict for the City of Steamboat Springs. 

IV. 

Plaintiffs claim on appeal that the district court erred in 

striking their pendent claim based on a violation of the Colorado 

2 After trial of this case, the Supreme Court handed down 

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (1986), in which the 

Court held that a municipality is liable under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 

(1982), when the objectionable conduct is directed by those who 

have authority to establish municipal policy on that action. In 

this case the issue is not whether the conduct was done by those 

who spoke for the City, but, even if it were, whether it rose to 

the level necessary to establish municipal liability under section 

1983. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 85-1457 Document: 01019290801 Date Filed: 12/19/1988 Page: 6 
Constitution. Defendants argue that piaintiffs are asking the 

federal court to create a Bivens-type action under state law. See 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 u.s. 388 (1971). We agree 

with defendants and decline to so expand Colorado law. 

v. 

In accordance with the en bane opinion in Specht III, this 

case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. The mandate is 

stayed pending petition for certiorari, under the terms of our 

order entered November 23, 1988. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 85-1457 Document: 01019290801 Date Filed: 12/19/1988 Page: 7