Torres v. Hansen

Background

This prisoner civil-rights action concerns Mario Torres’s July 4, 2012, arrest by Concord police officers Daniel Smith and Mike Hansen. The remaining claims were: (1) a Fourth Amendment claim alleging that Hansen and Smith unreasonably searched Torres’s residence by entering without a warrant; and (2) a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim concerning three alleged uses of force—when Torres entered the residence, after he was handcuffed, and at the police station.

The court stated that summary judgment had already been granted against Torres on his false-arrest, false-imprisonment, and municipal-liability claims. The parties had attended a settlement conference on December 11, 2019, but did not settle the case.

Case-management requirements

Because the action had been pending for more than three years and the court wanted to move it toward trial, the court ordered each party to file and serve a case-management statement by February 21, 2020. The statements did not need to be jointly prepared.

Each statement had to describe the discovery that remained, identify planned subpoenas and depositions, state whether the party planned to seek documents or serve interrogatories or requests for admissions, and propose a discovery schedule and cutoff date. The parties also had to identify any further motions they intended to file.

For trial planning, the statements had to identify when each party would be ready for trial, list dates of unavailability during the next twelve months, estimate the number of trial days, list intended witnesses and briefly describe their expected testimony, and identify the types of experts the party intended to call.

Witness expenses and conduct warning

The court informed Torres that he had to arrange to pay witness fees and expert-witness fees, including travel expenses, for witnesses he intended to call at trial. The court explained that proceeding without paying court filing fees does not authorize the court to waive those witness expenses.

Defense counsel Amy Rothman reported that Torres had allegedly made untruthful and baseless personal attacks against her in filings, an unrelated appeal, an email, a State Bar complaint, and verbal communications. She also expressed safety concerns about his alleged behavior at a deposition. The court took no action because the defendants had not requested sanctions and had not cited legal authority supporting sanctions. Without deciding whether the alleged conduct occurred or was improper, the court reminded the parties that federal procedural rules and the court’s inherent authority may allow monetary or nonmonetary sanctions for certain improper conduct, including bad-faith litigation or willful disobedience of a court order.

Disposition

The court issued an order for case-management statements and directed the parties to provide the requested information as the case proceeded toward trial. The order did not decide the merits of the remaining Fourth Amendment claims or impose sanctions. Judge Susan Illston also expected the parties to maintain reasonable civility.