T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B E T T Y L O U H E S T O N ; e t a l., P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l ees, v. T A S E R I N T E RN A T I O N A L , I N C ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t, a nd C I T Y O F S A L I N A S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s. N o. 09- 15327 D . C . N o . 5 : 0 5 -cv -0 3 6 5 8 -JW ME MOR AN DU M *

BE TT Y LOU HEST ON a n d ROBE RT H H E S T O N , i nd i vi du al l y and as the pers on al r e pr e s e nt a t i ve s of

R obe rtC . H e s t on, de c e a s e d, P l ai n t i ffs, a nd M I S T Y K A S T N E R , a s A dm i ni s tr a t orof the E s t a t e of

R obe rtC . H e s t on, D e c e a s e d, N o. 09- 15440 D . C . N o . 5 : 0 5 -cv -0 3 6 5 8 -JW



# FI LED MA Y05 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H onor abl e R ona l d B . L e i ght on, U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof

W a s hi ngt on, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

2 P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. T A S E R I N T E RN A T I O N A L , I N C ., D ef

endant- A pp el l ee , a nd C I T Y O F S A L I N A S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s.

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s W a r e , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r7, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: R Y M E R and N . R . S M IT H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and L E IG H T O N , D i stri ct Judg e. ** 1. T A S E R w a i ve d i t s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s c aus a t i on i ns truc t i on mi s s t a t e d Ca l i f

o rn i al a w b e c au s e th e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s n o o b

j e c t i o n f r o m T ASER

“ s t a t i ng di s t i nc t l y the m a tt e robj e c t e d t o a nd the gr ounds f orthe obj e c t i on. ” F e d. R . C iv . P . 5 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ; s e e A f f ordable H

ous i ng D e v . C or

p. v . C i t y of Fr e s no , 433 F . 3d 1181, 1196 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( “ F a i l ur e t o obj e c tt o a n i ns truc t i on w a i ve s the r i ghtof3

re vi ew . ”) . E ven i f the obj ec t i on had b ee n rai se d d uri ng the i nstruct i on confere nce, it s h o u ld h a v e b e e n s u b s e q u e n tly r a is e d a n d p r e s e rv e d o n th e r e c o r d . 2. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n i ns truc t i ng the j ury on the s t a nda r d f or e va l ua t i ng e xpe rtt e s t i m ony be c aus e , “ l ooki ng t o the i ns truc t i on a s aw hol e , the subst ance of the appl i cabl e l aw w as [] fa i rl y and corr ec t l y c ov er ed. ” G am bi niv. T otalR enalC are, Inc. , 486 F . 3d 1087, 1092 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he “ r e a s onabl e m e di c a l pr obabi l i ty ” i ns truc t i on r e q u e s te d b y T A S E R d id n o t r e f le c t an e w ap p r o a c h to c au s a tio n . L i neaw eave r v . P lant I ns ulat i on C o. , 37 C a l . R ptr . 2d 902, 906 n. 2 ( C t . A pp. 1995) . I nde e d, the t erm “ re as on abl e probabi l i ty” si m pl y m eans “ m ore l i kel y than n ot , ” i d. a t906, a nd the t erm “ m edi ca l ” i s “ no m ore than a rec og ni t i on that[apart i cul arca se ] i nv ol ve[s ] the use of m edi ca l evi dence, ” R utherf ord v. O w ens-Il l i no is, Inc. , 941 P . 2d 12 03 , 12 19 n. 11 (C al . 19 97 ). H er e, the di stri ctcourti nstruct ed the j ury that

“ P l ai n t i ffs h av e t o p ro d u ce ev i d en ce w h i ch , co n si d ered i n l i g h to f al l th e fact s, l ead s yo u t o b el i ev e th atw h atP l ai n t i ffs cl ai m i s m or e l i ke l y tr ue than not

. . . . ” T he di stri ctcourt ’ s i nstruct i on re fl ec t s the “ m ore l i kel y than n ot ” s t andard of proo f, w h ic h is th e o n ly s u b s ta n tiv e s ta n d a r d in th e p h r a s in g r e q u e s te d b y T A S E R . 3. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by qua l i f y i ng a nd a dm i tt i ng expertt es t i m on y f

rom H es t on ’ s w i tness es , D rs . M ye rs and H addi x, un der D a u b ert4

v. Merre l l

D ow P ha rm aceut i cal

s, Inc. , 509 U . S . 579 ( 1993) . D r . M y e r s i s aboa r dce rt i fi ed ca rdi ol og i stw i th ext ensi ve experi ence i n the fi el d o f c ar di ac el ec troph ys i ol og y. D r. H addi x i s abo ar d-ce rt i fi ed m edi ca l exam i ner a tS t anford U ni vers i ty w ho has per form ed tho usands of aut op si es l i ke the on e s he performed o n H e s to n . B o th w itn e s s e s w e r e s u f f ic ie n tly q u a lif

ie d b y “k n o w le d g e , s k ill, e xpe r i e nc e , tr a i ni ng, ore duc a t i on” t o t e s t i f y r e ga r di ng the e f

f e c t s of the M 26 T A S E R d e v ic e o n H e s to n ’s b o d y a n d th e u ltim a te c au s e s o f h is d e a th . See Fe d . R. E v id . 7 0 2 . A d d itio n a lly , th e s tu d ie s o n w h ic h th e e x p e rts r e lie d w e r e s u f f ic ie n tly anal og ou s t o thi s c as e t o sup po rtthe expertw i tness es ’ theori es of causat i on such th atth e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n p erm i tt i n g th e ex p ert s t o so t e s t i f y . T he s tudi e s de m ons tr a t e d ar e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n T A S E R de pl oy m e nt s a nd bl oo d aci d l evel s thatcoul d b e a gg ra vat ed by addi t i on al fa ct ors a tpl ayi n thi s c as e, su ch as th e n u m er o sity an d d u ra ti o n o f T A S E R d ep lo ym en ts an d th e v icti m s’s a lr e a d y - e n h a n c e d o x y g e n n e e d s a n d b lo o d a c id le v e ls . 4. H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i ta f f i rm e d the j ury’ s c om pensat ory dam ages aw ar d t o the es t at e. W hi l e the es t at e pre se nt ed ev i d en ce su g g est i n g th atH est o n w as treat ed b y em erg en cy m ed i cal t ech n i ci an s, transpo rt ed t o the ho spi t al , and rece i ved con t i nu i ng m edi ca l tre atm ent , i tpres ent ed no e vi de nc e a ttr i a l s how i ng c om pe ns abl e “ l os s orda m a ge tha tthe de c e de nt5

s us t a i ne d ori nc urr e d b e fo r e de a th , . . . noti nc l ud[ i ng] a ny da m a ge s f orpa i n, suff er i ng , or di sf

i gu re m ent . ’ ” C o u n t

y o f L . A . v. Su

p eri o r C o u rt , 981 P . 2d 68, 70 (C al . 1 9 9 9 ) (q u o t i n g C al . C i v . P ro c. C o d e § 3 7 7 . 3 4 ; em p h asi s al t ered ). T h u s, al tho ug h the tri al j ud ge had d i sc re t i on t o “ w ei gh the evi dence” w hen i tconsi dere d T A S E R ’ s m ot i on for anew tri al , i tabused tha tdi s c r e t i on by de ny i ng the m ot i on w h e r e th e r e w a s s im p ly n o e v id e n c e to w e ig h in s u p p o rt o f th e ju ry a w a r d . See A i r - Se a Forw arde rs , I

nc . v . A i rA s i a C o. , 8 8 0 F .2 d 1 7 6 , 1 9 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . W e a c c or di ngl y r e ve r s e a nd va c a t e the c om pe ns a t ory da m a ge s aw a r d. 5. T he di stri ctcourtal so erre d i n aw ar di ng A pp el l ee s a tt orney’ s f ee s und er C alifo rn ia C o d e o f C iv il P ro ce d u re § 1 0 2 1 .5 . S ec ti o n 1 0 2 1 .5 p er m it s a n atto rn ey ’s f e e s a w a r d o n ly w h e n ap la in tif f “a c ts a s atru e p r iv a te a tto rn e y g e n e r a l, p ro secu t i n g a l aw su i tth aten fo rces an i m p o rt an tp u b l i c ri g h tan d co n fers a s i gni f i c a ntbe ne f

i t , de s pi t e the f

a c ttha thi s orhe row n f i na nc i a l s t a ke i n the ou t com e w ou l d n otby i t se l f c on st i tut e an adequ at e i ncent i ve t o l i t i gat e. ” Fla n n ery v . C al . Hi

ghw ay P atr ol , 71 C al . R ptr. 2d 63 2, 63 6 (C t . A pp . 19 98 ) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) ; s e e I n r e A dopt i on of

J os hua S. , 174 P . 3d 192, 198 ( C a l . 2008) . T he ke y que s t i on i s “ w he the rthe f i na nc i a l bur de n pl a c e d on the party [ cl ai m i ng fe es ] i s outof prop ort i on t o i t s per sonal st ake i n the l aw sui t . ”6

L yons v. Chi nese H

osp. A ss ’n , 39 C al . R ptr. 3d 55 0, 56 6 (C t . A pp . 20 06 ) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . In th i s case, A p p el l ees asserted w ro n g fu l d eath , su rv i v al , assau l tan d b att ery, an d stri ctan d n eg l i g en ce p ro d u ctl i ab i l i ty cl ai m s ag ai n stth e d efen d an t s. B ecau se H es t on ac tual l y di ed, A pp el l ee s c ou l d rea sonabl y e xp ec tt o, and i n fac tdi d, re cover subst ant i al dam ages fr om T A S E R . T hei r r ec ov ery c ou l d h ave been hi gh erhad th ey p rev ai l ed o n al l th ei r cl ai m s. M o reo v er, th e w i l l i n g n ess o f A p p el l ees’ a tto rn e y s to ta k e th is c a s e o n ac o n tin g e n c y f e e b a s is

— w ith o u t a n e m p ir ic a l b a s is to b e lie v e th e y w o u ld b e n e f it f r o m C a lif

o rn ia ’s p r iv a te a tto rn e y g e n e r a l s ta tu te

— d e m o n s tr a te s th a t A p p e lle e s h a d a n “a d e q u a te in c e n tiv e to litig a te ” th e irc la im s . 6. F i nal l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n v ac at i ng the pu ni t i ve dam ages a w a r d to th e e s ta te . A s ap r e lim in a ry m a tte r , K a s tn e rd id n o t h a v e s ta n d in g to ch al l en g e th e co u rt ’ s v acat i o n o f th e p u n i t i v e d am ag es aw ard t o H est o n ’ s p aren t s, w ho pr oc e e de d se

pa ratel y a s w r o n g f

u l d e a th h e ir s . Se e G e or gi a v . Mc C ol lum , 505 U . S . 4 2 , 5 5 (1 9 9 2 ) (“ [A ] l i t i g an tm ay rai se a cl ai m o n b eh al f o f a th i rd p arty [o n l y] i f the l i t i gantcan d em on stra t e that. . . there exi st s s om e hi nd rance t o the thi rd party' s abi l i ty t o p rot ec ti t s ow n i nt er es t . ”) . U nd erC al i forni a l aw , pu ni t i ve dam ages m aybe aw ar ded w hen a pl ai nt i ff pr ove s by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e tha tade f e nda nta c t e d w i th “ s uc h a7

consci ou s and del i bera t e di sr egar d o f the i nt er es t s of others thathi s c on du ctm ay be ca l l ed w i l l ful or w ant on . ” T a ylo r v. Su

p eri o r C o u rt , 598 P . 2d 854, 856 ( C a l. 1 9 7 9 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) ; se e C a l . C i v. C ode § 3 29 4(a) . H er e, T A S E R m ade e ff ort s, al bei ti nsuffi ci ent l y, t o w arn i t s c ust om er s aboutthe r i s ks pos e d by pr ol onge d T A S E R de pl oy m e nt . W hi l e thi s m a y a m ount to n e g lig e n c e , it d o e s n o t r is e to th e le v e l “w illf u l o rw a n to n ” c o n d u c t. T o m a s e lli v . T r ans am e r i c a I

ns . C o. , 31 C al . R ptr. 2d 43 3, 44 4 n . 14 (C t . A pp . 19 94 ) ( such c o n d u c t m u s t b e “in c o n s is te n t w ith th e h yp o th e s is th a t [ it] . . . w a s th e r e s u lt o f . . . m e r e ne gl i ge nc e orothe rs uc h noni ni qui t ous hum a n f a i l i ng. ” ) . M or e ove r , a l though the j ury f ou nd thata “ re as on abl e m anufacturer ” w ou l d h ave kno w n thatprol on ged T A S E R de pl oy m e ntm a y c aus e c a r di a c a rr e s t , i ta ns w e r e d “N o” t o the que s t i on a s ki ng w he the rT A S E R a c tua l l y “ kne w ” of tha tr i s k. W e a c c or di ngl y a f f i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s ordervaca t i ng the pu ni t i ve dam ages aw ar d t o the es t at e. E ach p arty w i l l b ear i t s o w n co st s. A F F I R M E D in p a rt, R E V E R S E D in p a rt.