Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01202/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01202-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY RICHARD LAWMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01202-DMR 

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff’s motion in limine 1, exclude public intoxication report (Docket No. 132): 

Denied.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine 2, evidence of Plaintiff’s alcohol use (Docket No. 133):

Granted in part, denied in part. Evidence of Plaintiff’s prior alcohol use is not admissible to prove 

that Plaintiff was intoxicated on December 31, 2011. Such evidence is admissible solely for the 

purpose of the parties’ expert testimony regarding Plaintiff’s possible diagnoses, e.g., bipolar 

disorder vs. alcohol abuse disorder. The court will give a limiting instruction to the jury. Keram 

may discuss Sprauve’s notes regarding “rule out alcohol use disorder,” but may not reference 

specific notes in the Sprauve records about alcohol use unless Plaintiff opens the door. 

Plaintiff’s motion in limine 3, expert opinion as to probable cause or reasonableness 

of Defendants’ conduct (Docket No. 134): Granted. Experts may opine regarding whether the 

Defendant Officers acted in a manner consistent with their training, but no expert may testify as to 

ultimate issues, such as whether probable cause supported Plaintiff’s arrest or whether the 

Defendant Officers acted reasonably.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine 4, defense based on trespass (Docket No. 135): Granted in 

part, denied in part. Defendants may not offer a defense that the Defendant Officers had probable 

Case 4:15-cv-01202-DMR Document 230 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cause to arrest Plaintiff for violating California Penal Code section 602(o). Defendants may offer 

a defense that the Defendant Officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for violating California 

Penal Code section 602.1(a) on an obstruction theory. There currently is no evidence to support 

an intimidation theory. 

Plaintiff’s motion in limine 5, exclude certain opinions of defense expert Emily 

Keram, M.D. (Docket No. 136): Granted in part, denied in part. Re opinion 1: Keram may offer 

her opinion about whether a psychiatrist can diagnose to a reasonable degree of medical 

probability the cause of Plaintiff’s behavior on December 31, 2011. Re opinions 1(a) and 1(b): 

Defendants may not offer expert testimony about whether Plaintiff was intoxicated on December 

31, 2011. Keram also cannot testify about any disputed symptoms (for example, the smell of 

alcohol, slurred speech, or bloodshot eyes); such facts are contested, and are within the province of 

the jury. Keram may offer her opinion about whether the undisputed symptoms displayed by 

Plaintiff on December 31, 2011 (for example, belligerence, grandiosity, rudeness) were consistent 

with bipolar or other disorders. Keram may not testify about whether Plaintiff’s symptoms may 

have been caused by drug use. Keram may not quote the reference in the Sprauve records to 

Plaintiff’s statement about striking his wife. Keram may not offer opinion 2, which is whether 

Plaintiff should have been detained pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 (“5150

detention”). All experts, including Keram, are prohibited from opining on the credibility of any 

witness.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine 6, OCC materials (Docket No. 137): Granted in part, denied 

in part. See discussion below re Defendants’ motion in limine 2.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine 7, testimony that Plaintiff was using drugs on December 

31, 2011 (Docket No. 138): Granted. As to witness Rodie, the prejudice of such testimony 

outweighs its probative value. As to Keram, her expert opinion is based on insufficient facts/data.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine 8, evidence of Rodie’s arrests (Docket No. 139): Granted.

Defendants’ motion in limine 1, exclude opinions of Plaintiff’s expert Bruce Victor, 

M.D. (Docket No. 148): Granted in part, denied in part. Victor may offer his opinions about 

Plaintiff’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder (opinion 1) and that Plaintiff was manifesting symptoms 

Case 4:15-cv-01202-DMR Document 230 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of his bipolar disorder at the time of his arrest (opinion 2). Plaintiff may not offer expert opinion 

about whether Plaintiff was intoxicated on December 31, 2011. Victor also may not testify about 

disputed displayed symptoms (for example, the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, or bloodshot 

eyes); such facts are contested, and are within the province of the jury. Victor may not opine on 

the credibility of any witness. Victor may not offer opinion 4 (i.e., law enforcement application of 

criteria for 5150 detention, and whether Plaintiff met such criteria).

Defendants’ motion in limine 2, exclude opinions of Plaintiff’s expert David 

Dusenbury (Docket No. 149); Plaintiff’s motion in limine 6, OCC materials (Docket No. 

137): Granted in part, denied in part. In response to the court’s order, Plaintiff identified the 

Dusenbury opinions he plans to offer at trial. [Docket No. 218.] Dusenbury may not offer 

opinions that were not identified in Docket No. 218. In addition, the court made the following 

rulings:

Dusenbury may offer the following opinions to which Defendants did not object: #3, 

March 21 report (p. 3) (however, Dusenbury may not opine that Plaintiff was not on drugs; 

Dusenbury may opine that there is no evidence that Plaintiff was on drugs); #6, March 21 report 

(p. 3); #8, March 21 report (p. 3); #12, March 21 report (p. 4); #13, March 21 report (p. 4) (but 

only as to California Penal Code section 602.1(a)); and whether the standard of care for danger to 

oneself under 647(f) was the same as that related to Welfare & Institutions Code section 5150 

(offered at deposition), except that Dusenbury may not opine about whether Plaintiff satisfied the 

criteria for a 5150 detention.

Dusenbury may not offer the following opinions: Opinion #4, March 21 report (p. 3); 

opinion that “reasonable suspicion” is not the proper standard for determining whether an arrest 

was lawful or unlawful (May 2/May 31 opinions); opinion about whether the Four Seasons 

residence lobby was a public place for purposes of 647(f) (offered at deposition); opinion about 

whether Lawman was unable to care for himself on 12/13/11 (offered at deposition).

As to opinion #5 (March 21 report, p. 3) and the May 2/May 31 opinions regarding SFPD 

policies and procedures regarding 647(f) arrests, Dusenbury may offer his opinion about 

Plaintiff’s theory that his “arrest was the result of CCSF’s informal policy and practice of arresting 

Case 4:15-cv-01202-DMR Document 230 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

individuals for public intoxication based on actual or perceived ‘behavior’ problems, even when 

those people do not meet the criteria for arrest under Penal Code section 647(f).” [See Docket No. 

200.] He may offer his opinions about the evidence supporting this theory, including Latko’s 

testimony, Moracha’s testimony, the OCC recommendation about alcohol testing, and the fact that 

a 647(f) arrest does not require a full incident report and may be approved by supervisors 

telephonically.

The court has reviewed the parties’ supplemental briefing regarding the SFPD alcohol 

testing policy in the Booking and Detention Manual. [Docket Nos. 222, 223, 226.] It is not clear 

whether the alcohol testing policy in that manual applies to officers in the field as well as SFPD 

Station Keepers. Based on the language of the policy itself and the testimony of Officers Gordon 

and Minioza, a jury could reasonably conclude that the policy applies to officers making 647(f) 

arrests in the field, regardless of whether arrestees are later held at a district station or County Jail 

1. Therefore, Dusenbury may testify about his understanding of the alcohol testing policy, and 

that violations of that policy support his opinion that CCSF has an informal policy and practice of 

arresting individuals for public intoxication based on actual or perceived ‘behavior’ problems, 

even when those people do not meet the criteria for arrest under Penal Code section 647(f). 

Dusenbury may testify about the individual OCC complainants’ requests for tests identified in 

Docket No. 218 to the extent they support his opinions. 

Defendants can cross-examine Dusenbury regarding the specific OCC complaints, but 

neither side may introduce percipient witnesses or other evidence regarding the incidents that are 

the subject of the OCC complaints.

No expert may testify about the number or significance of “sustained” OCC complaints.

Defendants may attempt to introduce evidence regarding the total number of 647(f) arrests

in San Francisco and other major California cities. 

Defendants’ motion in limine 3, exclude argument and evidence of failure to provide 

medical care (Docket No. 150): Granted in part, denied in part. Plaintiff may offer evidence and 

argument that 5150 detention generally is an option available to the Defendant Officers, but may 

not offer evidence and argument that Plaintiff satisfied the criteria for a 5150 detention. Victor 

Case 4:15-cv-01202-DMR Document 230 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

may not offer any opinions regarding 5150 detention, but Dusenbury may offer opinions about 

police officers’ training regarding 5150 detention. 

Defendants’ motion in limine 4, exclude evidence of symptoms, treatment, or 

diagnosis post-January 1, 2012 (Docket No. 151): Granted in part, denied in part. Richard De 

Villiers may testify about his personal observations of Plaintiff regarding the November 2012

incident, except that he may not testify about the 5150 detention. Victor may not testify about this 

incident, as it does not form the basis for his opinions. Plaintiff may not offer or rely on medical 

records from the Indian Health Center.

Defendants’ motion in limine 5, exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s motor vehicle accident

(Docket No. 152): Granted in part, denied in part. Plaintiff may not present evidence or argument 

about Plaintiff’s January 1, 2012 motor vehicle accident. Immediately before Plaintiff testifies, 

the court will read to the jury the following statement: “Shortly after Plaintiff’s arrest, in an 

incident unrelated to this case, Plaintiff suffered an accident resulting in cognitive impairment.”

Defendants’ motion in limine 6, exclude testimony of Nathan Hays (Docket No. 153): 

Denied. Hays may offer testimony about his personal observations of Plaintiff on January 1, 

2012, subject to a limiting instruction to the jury that they may not consider his testimony to 

determine whether the Defendant Officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff on December 31, 

2011. However, Hays may not testify about the accident.

Defendants’ motion in limine 7, exclude evidence of damages not disclosed in 

discovery (Docket No. 154): Denied. Plaintiff may testify about emotional distress related to his 

arrest and detention, but his testimony may not be speculative. No experts will be permitted to 

opine about Plaintiff’s emotional distress. 

Defendants’ motion in limine 8, exclude expert testimony from non-experts (Docket 

No. 155): Denied as premature. The court provided counsel with examples of appropriate 

questions, and cautioned counsel not to elicit testimony regarding whether Plaintiff met the 

requirements for 5150 detention on December 31, 2011.

Defendants’ motion in limine 9, exclude Michael Herman (Docket No. 156): Granted, 

except that Herman may testify on rebuttal if the door is opened on alcohol use.

Case 4:15-cv-01202-DMR Document 230 Filed 08/08/16 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants’ motion in limine 10, exclude testimony by Michael Moracha re emotional 

distress damages (Docket No. 157): Denied as moot; Plaintiff withdraws Moracha as a witness 

on the subject of Plaintiff’s emotional distress.

II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER

Granted. Defendants may amend their answer to include a qualified immunity defense. 

Defendants concede that qualified immunity is not applicable to Plaintiff’s arrest for violating 

California Penal Code section 647(f). Parties were ordered to submit further briefing and 

proposals regarding the application of qualified immunity to an arrest for violation of California 

Penal Code section 602.1(a).

III. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants ask the court to take judicial notice of the fact that San Francisco County Jail is 

operated by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, not the San Francisco Police Department. 

[Docket No. 144.] Plaintiff objected only as to the relevance of this fact. The court finds the fact 

is relevant and grants Defendants’ request for judicial notice.

IV. WITNESSES

Plaintiff’s designation of “CCSF”: Plaintiff represented that he has identified to 

Defendants the specific witnesses he will call at trial.

Nurse Lapitan: Defendants withdraw Nurse Lapitan as a witness.

Jeanne Chisholm: Chisholm may testify about SFPD arrest statistics but may not offer 

statistical analysis or other expert testimony.

Harry Motro, Psy.D.: Objection sustained; Motro may not testify at trial.

Officers Harris, Stark, Tiffany, Reyes, Alexander, Ly, Conway, Barcena, Alvarado, Jonas, 

Yee, Bradford, Liu re OCC complaints: Objection sustained; officers may not testify re OCC 

complaints at trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-01202-DMR Document 230 Filed 08/08/16 Page 6 of 6