Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05172/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05172-3/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL WAYNE GARNER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-05172-EDL 

ORDER FOLLOWING FURTHER 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

On July 21, 2016, the Court held a further Pretrial Conference in this case. For the reasons 

stated at the conference and in this Order, the Court orders as follows. 

I. VOIR DIRE 

By July 22, 2016, the Parties shall submit a revised set of voir dire questions that conforms 

with the Court’s July 11, 2016 Order, and deletes any questions covered by the questionnaire 

lodged by the Parties during the further Pretrial Conference on July 21, 2016. 

II. JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

By July 22, 2016, the Parties shall submit a revised set of jury instructions, divided into 

pre-instructions and final instructions. The revised instructions shall conform with the discussion 

during the further Pretrial Conference, including the revisions to the “Claims and Defenses” 

instruction, the deletion of instructions regarding Plaintiff’s Bane Act, battery, and negligence 

claims, and the addition of an explanation of the verdict form in the “Return of Verdict” 

instruction. 

III. VERDICT FORM 

 The verdict form to which the Parties stipulated on the record during the further Pretrial 

Conference is attached to this Order. 

Case 3:14-cv-05172-EDL Document 105 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 3
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 Californi

a

IV. STIPULATIONS 

1. By July 22, 2016, the Parties shall submit a revised version of the stipulation and 

proposed order submitted on July 15, 2015, regarding Defendant City and County of San 

Francisco’s agreement not to assert the right to payment for goods and services provided in 

connection with treatment of Plaintiff Michael Garner for injuries sustained on November 27, 

2013 (Dkt. 99) to include a statement to the effect that Plaintiff preserves his objections to the 

Court’s rulings regarding the collateral source rule and economic damages, and to clarify if 

necessary that Defendant City and County of San Francisco will not attempt to collect any local 

taxes in connection with this treatment. The Parties shall further revise the stipulation and 

proposed order to provide that the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce this order. 

2. The Parties stipulated on the record that the jury’s finding regarding whether Officer Harris 

used unreasonable force during the course of his arrest of Michael Garner is determinative of its 

finding on Plaintiff’s Bane Act, battery, and negligence claims. 

3. The Parties stipulated on the record that, if the jury finds that Plaintiff Michael Garner has 

proven by clear and convincing evidence that Officer Jared Harris’s conduct was malicious or 

committed in reckless disregard of Michael Garner’s rights, it has necessarily also found that 

Plaintiff met his burden under the preponderance of the evidence standard. 

V. PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS 

Evidence of Plaintiff’s May 24, 2013 and July 14, 2014 felony convictions is admissible 

under Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as Plaintiff acknowledged on the record 

during the further Pretrial Conference. The felonies at issue involved stolen property and burglary 

and occurred only approximately two and three years ago. See Clem v. Lomeli, Case No. 

2:05cv02129 (JKS), 2007 WL 2688842, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2007) (citations omitted); 

United States v. Estrada, 430 F.3d 606, 618 (2d Cir. 2005); Daniels v. Loizzo, 986 F. Supp. 245, 

249 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Accordingly their nature, and the time that has elapsed since conviction, 

weigh in favor of admission. Further, Plaintiff’s credibility is particularly important in this case, 

which involves several factual disputes between Plaintiff’s and Defendant Officer Harris’ version 

of events. 

Case 3:14-cv-05172-EDL Document 105 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 3
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 Californi

a

In general, the convictions’ probative value is not substantially outweighed by their 

prejudicial effect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 403. However, the jury might draw improper inferences 

based on the fact that the May 24, 2013 conviction was for receipt of a stolen bicycle. 

Accordingly, these convictions are admissible, except that the Parties shall not reference the fact 

that the May 24, 2013 receipt of stolen property conviction involved a bicycle, which fact is 

excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. 

VI. WITNESSES 

By July 22, 2016, the Parties shall submit a schedule of witnesses whom they plan to call 

out of order, and at least twenty-four hours before each trial day, the schedule of witnesses whom 

they plan to call that day. 

VII. EXHIBITS 

If the Parties cannot agree regarding which photographs of Plaintiff’s face before and after 

the November 27, 2013 incident should be introduced, then by July 22, 2016, they shall jointly 

submit a statement of no more than two pages that explains their respective positions and attaches 

the proposed photographs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2016 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-05172-EDL Document 105 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 3