Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03974/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03974-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Case No. C 05-3974-JF (RS)

ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC3)

**E-Filed 1/24/08**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KAREN CARTER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-3974-JF (RS)

ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

[re: docket nos. 78, 79]

Plaintiff Karen Carter ("Plaintiff") has filed two motions in limine. The first seeks to

preclude Defendants' expert, William J. Crout, from offering testimony similar to that submitted

in his expert report, in which he stated that the circumstances in this case warranted the force

used by corrections officers. Plaintiff asserts that the trial court has broad discretion in deciding

if expert testimony should be admitted, and thus it has discretion to exclude the testimony. Scott

v. Ross, 150 F.3d 1275, 1286 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Crout's proposed

testimony "essentially tells the jury what result to reach." Motion, 7:10-11. 

Federal Rule of Evidence 704 allows expert witnesses to express an opinion on the

ultimate issue to be decided by the jury. Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1484-85 (9th

Cir. 1991) (superseded by statute on other grounds). In Davis, the Ninth Circuit considered the

Case 5:05-cv-03974-JF Document 93 Filed 01/24/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case No. C 05-3974-JF (RS)

ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC3)

admissibility of testimony similar to that at issue here. It held as follows:

[Defendant] objected to plaintiffs' police expert, Donald Van Blaricom, because

he testified that Sheriff Stairs was reckless in his failure to adequately train his

deputies, and that there was a causal link between this recklessness and plaintiffs'

injuries. They contend that this was improper opinion testimony on a question of

law. This argument is without merit. Fed.R.Evid. 704 allows expert witnesses to

express an opinion on an ultimate issue to be decided by the jury. Moreover,

Fed.R.Evid. 702 permits expert testimony comparing the conduct of parties to the

industry standard. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Van

Blaricom's testimony. 

Id. (citations omitted). 

At the same time, the Ninth Circuit also has made clear that an expert opinion on the

"ultimate issue" may not go so far as to permit an expert to offer a legal conclusion. Muhktar v.

California State University, Hayward, 229 F.3d 1053, 1065 n. 10 (9th Circ. 2002) ("It is well

established, however, that expert testimony concerning the ultimate is not per se improper . . .

However, an expert witness cannot give an opinion as to her legal conclusion, i.e., an opinion on

an ultimate issue of law.")

In his expert report, Mr. Crout opines on the factual circumstances surrounding this case,

including whether the force used by the officers was appropriate. This opinion is not a legal

conclusion. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to exclude Mr. Crout's testimony

in its entirety. However, Mr. Crout will be limited to the opinions he expressed in his expert

report, and he should not be asked to volunteer an opinion as to whether the Defendants acted

unconstitutionally or exercised "excessive force." 

Plaintiff's second motion raises the question of whether evidence of Plaintiff's prior bad

acts should be excluded. These acts included an alleged assault on a former boyfriend and a

previous arrest for drunk driving. Defendants do not oppose the motion but reserve the right to

revisit the issue should the trial testimony and circumstances warrant. Accordingly, the Court

will grant the motion as to these specific incidents with the understanding that all in limine

rulings are subject to review if circumstances change.

However, Plaintiff also seeks to excluded evidence of the conduct at Boswell's Bar,

which occurred on the night in question in this case and led to her arrest and detention. Plaintiff

alleges that she was falsely arrested by the Campbell police on a charge of public intoxication. 

Case 5:05-cv-03974-JF Document 93 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 05-3974-JF (RS)

ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC3)

Defendants argue that evidence of Plaintiff's conduct at Boswell's is directly relevant to the

question of whether she in fact was intoxicated and also relevant with respect to the nature and

extent of the injuries Plaintiff alleges that she suffered during her arrest. The Court agrees and

will deny the motion to this extent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2007

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03974-JF Document 93 Filed 01/24/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case No. C 05-3974-JF (RS)

ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC3)

This Order was served on the following persons:

Michael G. Ackerman cjs@aandklaw.com,

Mark Scott Collins msc@cslawfirm.com, shunt@cslawfirm.com; steve@cslawfirm.com

Kevin B. Kevorkian kbk@aandklaw.com,

Christopher James Olson , Esq colson@smwb.com,

David Michael Rollo david.rollo@cco.sccgov.org, anna.espiritu@cco.sccgov.org 

Case 5:05-cv-03974-JF Document 93 Filed 01/24/08 Page 4 of 4