Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:18-cv-05755
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, Judge Rogers denied a stay and set trial procedures, including evidence limits and separate phases for claims and damages.
The plaintiffs, defendants including Mateu, and the parties’ witnesses and trial counsel are affected by the stay ruling, evidence limits, trial schedule, claim and damages phasing, and other trial procedures.
What happened
Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit is a pretrial order concerning a planned jury trial. Defendant Mateu asked to pause the case while an appeal of an earlier order was pending, but the court denied that request.
The court set trial scheduling procedures, limits on trial time, witness and exhibit rules, jury-selection procedures, and other courtroom requirements. It also addressed the plaintiffs’ late motions to exclude evidence. Evidence about whether Sahleem Tindle possessed or fired a gun would not be allowed during the civil-rights claim’s trial phase but could be allowed during the negligence phase. The court denied the request to broadly exclude evidence about Tindle’s criminal history, alleged gang affiliation, and prior incarceration, finding it relevant to damages. The court also granted the defendants’ motion to separate liability from damages and ordered damages to be tried at the same time as negligence.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the parties to follow these procedures and stated that Doe defendants would be dismissed once the jury was sworn. The order terminated docket numbers 55, 56, and 64, but it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit · No. 4:18-cv-05755
- Yvonne Rogers
- Jan. 13, 2020
Background
The court entered this pretrial order after a January 10, 2020, pretrial conference. The case includes a civil-rights claim under Section 1983, which provides a cause of action for certain violations by state or local officials, and a negligence claim. The order references an earlier ruling that denied defendant Mateu’s motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim, including qualified immunity, because material factual disputes existed. This order did not revisit that merits ruling.
Rulings on the Motions
Mateu moved to stay, or pause, the case while an appeal of the earlier summary-judgment order was pending. The court denied the motion to stay. The court stated that, accepting the plaintiffs’ version of the disputed facts—that Tindle did not possess a gun and was attempting to surrender when he was shot—Mateu’s appellate position was legally frivolous.
The plaintiffs filed two motions in limine late. A motion in limine asks the court to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before it is offered at trial. For evidence that Tindle possessed or fired a gun before Mateu’s personal observations, the court tentatively found that the Section 1983 claim should be tried separately from the negligence claim. The court stated that the evidence would not be admissible during the Section 1983 phase but would be admissible during the next phase. The order also states that defendants confirmed they did not intend to affirmatively offer evidence of criminal conduct or convictions concerning Ciarra Turner or Yolanda Banks-Reed; the order imposed that restriction, while preserving possible use for impeachment as permitted.
For evidence concerning Tindle’s criminal history, alleged gang affiliation, and prior incarceration, the court found the evidence relevant to damages and denied the request to exclude it wholesale. The court granted the defendants’ contingent motion to separate liability from damages. It ordered that the damages phase be tried at the same time as the negligence phase and required the parties to meet and confer about trial phasing and file a joint or separate statement.
Trial and Case-Management Orders
The trial was set to trail the trial in Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation v. Adobe, Inc. The court planned to advise the parties whether jury selection would begin on January 31, February 7, or February 10, 2020; if none of those dates applied, the new trial date would be March 2, 2020. Each side would receive 14 hours to present its case. The court would seat nine jurors with no alternates and allow four peremptory challenges per side.
The order excluded witnesses until they completed testimony and prohibited references to settlement discussions, mediation, or insurance. It also generally prohibited evidence of a party’s wealth or lack of wealth except during a punitive-damages phase, if one existed. The parties were limited to their submitted witness and exhibit lists, subject to court-approved additions for good cause. The order established deadlines and procedures for witness lists, exhibits, jury questionnaires, opening-statement materials, expert disclosures, deposition transcripts, and witness notices.
The order required counsel, parties, and witnesses to behave professionally and prohibited speaking objections. It allowed written questions from jurors. It warned that violations could lead to sanctions, including monetary fines, striking a witness’s entire testimony, or terminating sanctions. All Doe defendants would be deemed dismissed once the jury was sworn. The order terminated docket numbers 55, 56, and 64.
Disposition and Classification
This was a procedural pretrial order. It denied the motion to stay, denied the plaintiffs’ request to exclude the second category of evidence wholesale, granted the contingent motion to separate liability from damages, and issued trial-management instructions. It did not decide which side would prevail on the underlying civil-rights or negligence claims. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.