Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00481/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00481-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel Y. Vasquez; and Cindy Garza,

for and on behalf of her minor son,

Santana Torres Vasquez, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Phoenix; Daniel Jones,

individually and in his official capacity

as a police officer for the City of

Phoenix; Jane Doe Jones; Mark T.

Kincannon, individually and in his

official capacity as a police officer for

the City of Phoenix; and Jane Doe

Kincannon, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-481-PHX-DGC

No. CV-05-608-PHX-DGC

(Consolidated Cases)

ORDER

On October 25, 2006, the Court entered an order regarding designated portions of the

transcript of the deposition of Manuel Vasquez. Dkt. #271. In paragraph 2 of the order, the

Court held that Defendants may present deposition testimony concerning Mr. Vasquez’s past

drug abuse. The Court has continued to think about this issue, and has concluded that its

decision was premature. Before determining that the prejudicial effect of this testimony does

not substantially outweigh its probative value, the Court must learn more about its probative

value. Specifically, the Court must obtain a better understanding of the expert testimony

concerning Mr. Vasquez’s drug abuse and the possible impact of that drug abuse on his preCase 2:04-cv-00481-DGC Document 277 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

injury cognitive functioning. After considering this evidence, the Court will be better

equipped to conduct the balancing analysis required by Federal Rule of Evidence 403. 

The parties should be prepared to address this issue at the hearing already scheduled

for October 30, 2006, at 11:30 a.m. Specifically, the parties should provide the Court with

expert reports, excerpts from expert depositions, and other evidence that addresses the

relevance of Mr. Vasquez’s drug use to the issue of his pre-injury cognitive abilities or other

issues in this case. After the Court has considered these materials, it will rule on whether Mr.

Vasquez’s prior drug use should be admitted in evidence or should be excluded under Rule

403. If Defendants must prepare the final videotape of Mr. Vasquez’s deposition testimony

before the start of trial, they should exclude from that videotape the testimony concerning

drug use. If the Court determines that it is admissible, Defendants will be permitted to

present it to the jury in another form. In addition, until the Court rules on this issue, the

parties should not mention Mr. Vasquez’s drug use in front of the jury.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00481-DGC Document 277 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2