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 a nd 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 E S T A T E O F Z A IM B O JC IC ; A JN IJA B OJ C I C ; NU R KO B AD E T A; NU R KO MI T HA T ; NU R KO AN Z DA ; NU R KO AME L A; T UC AK OV I C L AR I F A; T U C A K O V IC S M A Z L ; T U C A K O V IC HI HA D; T E C AK OV I C B E L MA, P R E J L O B A C S E J A D ;, P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. CI TY O F SA N J O SE; SA N J O SE PO LI CE D EPT; D O N A LD G U ESS i n d i v i d u al l y an d i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty; ST ARBUCKS; M AN AG ER S T A R B U C K S , i nd i vi du al l y a nd i n h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 07- 17343 D . C. N o . CV - 0 5 - 0 3 8 7 7 - RS ME MOR AN DU M *

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 r th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R i c ha r d S e e bor g, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r8, 2009 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED DE C 10 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , R A W L IN S O N an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P la in tif f s ap p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ( 1 ) o r d e rg r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to the C i ty of

S a n J os e a nd the S a n J os e P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nt , ( 2) de c i s i on t o pr e c l ude o n e o f P la in tif f s ’ e x p e r t w itn e s s e s f

r o m te s tif

y in g o n a n is s u e n o t m e n tio n e d in h is e x p e r t w itn e s s r e p o r t, a n d ( 3 ) r e f u s a l to g iv e P la in tif

f s ’ p r o p o s e d ju ry in s tru c tio n . W e a f f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n w h en i tp recl u d ed P l ai n t i ffs’ expertfr om t es t i fy i ng abou tpo l i ce offi ce rs ’ ob l i gat i on t o app roac h an encou nt er w i th an em ot i on al l y di sturbed i nd i vi du al di ff er ent l y than they w ou l d app roac h an e n c o u n te rw ith o th e rin d iv id u a ls . R u le 2 6 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

C iv il P ro ce d u re re q u ires ex p er t w itn es se s to p re p ar e a w ritt en re p o rt th at co n tain s “a c om pl e t e s t a t e m e ntof

a l l opi ni ons the w i tne s s w i l l e xpr e s s a nd the ba s i s a nd re as on s f or them . ” “ If

a party f ai l s t o p rovi de i nform at i on or i dent i fya w i tness as r e qui r e d by R ul e 26( a ) or( e ) , the pa r ty i s nota l l ow e d t o us e tha ti nf orm a t i on or w i tness t o sup pl y e vi dence on a m ot i on , ata hea ri ng , or ata tri al , un l es s the fa i l ure w a s s u b s ta n tia lly ju s tif

ie d o ris h a rm le s s .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 3 7 ( c ) ( 1 ) . T h e b u r d e n is o n th e p a r ty f

a c in g d is c o v e ry s a n c tio n s to s h o w th a t its f a ilu r e to c o m p ly w ith R u le 2 6 w a s s u b s ta n tia lly ju s tif ie d o rh a rm le s s . T

orres v . C i t

y of L os A ng eles , 548 F . 3d 11 97 , 12 13 (9th C i r. 20 08 ).3

T he R ul e 26 r e por tpr ovi de d by P l a i nt i f f s ’ e xpe r tdi d noti nc l ude hi s opi ni on on the i ss ue of po l i ce encoun t er s w i th em ot i on al l y di sturbed i nd i vi du al s. F urther, th e e x c e p tio n s to R u le 3 7 d o n o t ap p ly b e c au s e P la in tif f s h a v e n o t s a tis f

ie d th e ir bur de n of

s how i ng tha tthe i rdi s c ove ry vi ol a t i on w a s s ubs t a nt i a l l y j us t i f i e d or h arm l ess. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tr e f us e d t o i ns truc tthe j ury tha tB oj c i c ’ s m e nt a l he a l th w a s af a c t orthe j ury m us tc ons i de ri n de t e rm i ni ng w hether D ef

endantO ff

i ce r G uess ’ s use of forc e w as re as on abl e bec ause the di stri ct courti nstruct ed the j ury t o con si der “ al l of the ci rc um st ance s kno w n t o O ff i ce r G uess on the sc ene. ” A di stri ctcourtdo es no tabuse i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tre fuse s to g iv e ap r o p o s e d ju ry in s tru c tio n if th e in s tru c tio n g iv e n to th e ju ry le a v e s ap a r ty w i th “ am pl e r oo m t o argue hi s theory of the ca se t o the j ury. ” B r e w e rv . C i t y of N apa , 21 0 F . 3d 10 93 , 10 97 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). In an exces si ve force ca se , a di stri ct co u rt ’ s u se o f a g en eral “ t o t al i ty o f th e ci rcu m st an ces” i n stru ct i o n i s n o tan ab u se of di s c r e t i on, e ve n i f

the pl a i nt i f

f r e que s t s a“ m or e de t a i l e d i ns truc t i on[ ] a ddr e s s i ng the spec i fi c f

ac t ors t o b e c on si dere d i n the re as on abl enes s c al cul us. ” I d. ( c i t i ng F i kes v. C leg h o rn , 47 F . 3d 1011, 1014 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ) . A ge ne r a l i ns truc t i on l ea ves the party thatre qu es t ed a m ore s peci fi c i nstruct i on “ fr ee t o argue” other f a c to r s to th e ju ry . F i kes , 47 F . 3d a t1014. H e r e , O f f i c e rG ue s s t e s t i f

i e d he4

r e c ogni z e d B oj c i c w a s not“ m e nt a l l y s t abl e ” be f or e he f i r e d hi s T a s e ra tB oj c i c ; the j ury w as fr ee t o con si der thi s f ac tw hen i tdet erm i ned w hether the use of f orce w as r e a s o n ab le . W e nee d n otaddres s w hether the di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tgrant ed s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o the C i ty of S a n J os e a nd the S a n J os e P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nton P l a i nt i f f s ’ 42 U . S . C § 1983 c l a i m be c aus e s uc h e rr orw oul d be ha rm l e s s . “ I f no c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on oc c urr e d, the m uni c i pa l i ty c a nnotbe he l d l i abl e a nd w he the r‘ the de pa r tm e nt a l r e gul a t i ons m i ghtha ve a uthor i z e d the us e of const i tut i on al l y e xces si ve force i s qui t e bes i de the po i nt . ’ ” L ong v . C i t y and C o u n ty o f H o n o lu lu , 511 F . 3d 901, 907 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng C i t y of L os A ng eles v. H

el ler , 4 7 5 U .S . 7 9 6 , 7 9 9 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ) . T h e ju ry f o u n d O f f ic e rG u e s s d id notvi ol a t e B oj c i c ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s , a nd w e do notdi s turb tha tf i ndi ng on appe a l . T he r e f

or e , ne i the rthe C i ty of

S a n J os e northe S a n J os e P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nt c a n be he l d l i abl e unde r§ 1983. AF F I RME D.